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

Thread Starter

takao21203

Joined Apr 28, 2012
3,702
I think a copyright thief is someone who is capable of returning a compensation, but is denying a benefit to the IP owner.

Also it must be technnically possible to do a compensation.

Taking a personal photo for instance is violation of privacy law.

But a landscape? I took a photo from a Fujitsu calendar, and I attribute it: (C) by Fujitsu.
 

bountyhunter

Joined Sep 7, 2009
2,512
Just look at all the bankers and politicians who went to prison for bankrupting the World economy.


I forgot, no one went to prison for derivatives.;)
The point is that derivatives were not illegal, and what they did was not illegal. Greedy investors intentionally slithered into the cracks in the regulatory system avoiding the investments that were specifically regulated in favor of unregulated areas they could exploit. The derivative market was not regulated. They certainly did slimy things, like using the same "rating firms" to stamp A+ on their investments when those very firms were on their payroll. It's all bad, but that doesn't prove a crime.

It isn't possible to have a law against every evil thing that people can think up to do. You can't prosecute people just for being greedy and cheating others.

I don't think this is a political issue, it's a simple human nature issue: people will always cheat and steal and take advantage if they are given the chance, that's why laws exist. The only political aspect at all is the fact that one of our major political parties continuously claims that the government should NEVER "interfere" with business by having any regulations or oversight.... but we regularly have major incidents like the economic collapse that give us a clear picture of what the "unregulated" world would be like and it is terrifying.
 
Last edited:

bountyhunter

Joined Sep 7, 2009
2,512
But a landscape? I took a photo from a Fujitsu calendar, and I attribute it: (C) by Fujitsu.
But you can't do that without their permission. Suppose that the document where it was used was of poor quality and Fujitsu's brand was damaged by it's association to the product. Suppose a photo was taken and used by an organization that the owner of the picture did not support or approve of and he did not want it to look like he supported them?

The point is that people who have copyrighted material have some right to control where it's used and by whom.

A good example is when people stole the characters created by Walt Disney and Warner Brothers for use on posters that were very inappropriate:

http://www.pinterest.com/daneugent1/aint-gonna-work-on-dizzys-farm-no-more/

http://www.hakes.com/item.asp?Auction=199&ItemNo=85490


There are reasons why art should be protected.
 
Last edited:

Sparky49

Joined Jul 16, 2011
833
Bountyhunter is correct, as far as I'm aware.

A while ago, I investigated the legality of selling drawings I had done, which were based off of photographs. Seems that whilst things like landscapes aren't copyrighted (obviously), the interpretation of the subject (be it landscape, animal, still life) is copyrighted. Even though it may be a photography taken without any editing or 'arty stuff', it is still considered an artistic interpretation of the subject. It is this which prohibits the selling or redistribution of artworks based off of existing material (without permission).
 

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
...
You've changed your argument with the "artist interpretation" of a Ferrari.

There's nothing 'grey about it, if you 'copied' (not created independent of and with no foreknowledge of their specific design) the car exactly even for your personal use (the entire car is not 'fair use') they can and will be all over you.
...
The thread has moved on, so I'll keep this short.

But now you have changed the argument too. My point was that making a copy of someones car is not "theft" of a car.

Theft requires that the victim incurs a loss. No victim lost a car.

Your point has changed to theft by copying component ideas or copying look and feel. That's a different argument.

If I "steal your wallet" then as a victim you lost your wallet. and I am a thief.
If I saw your wallet and made one like it for my own use, that is a very different thing and I MAY or MAY NOT be guilty of some level of theft.

"May or may not" = a grey area.
 

bountyhunter

Joined Sep 7, 2009
2,512
Theft requires that the victim incurs a loss. No victim lost a car.
Copying art or even duplicating a coffee mug with a trademarked image does steal, just in a different way: when people buy the knock off products, those are sales lost to the actual product. You can steal without directly taking from somebody, you just intercept what they would have received.

Just ask the Bronco receivers....
 

Metalmann

Joined Dec 8, 2012
703
Seems to me that if people do not want something stolen or downloaded, they better keep it off the Net.

It's there forever, in one form or another.

Right now, there is a big controversy about Snowden's papers.

Some say they destroyed them all.:rolleyes:

Even I, know better than that......it's a breeze to crank out copies quickly.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
Copying art or even duplicating a coffee mug with a trademarked image does steal, just in a different way: when people buy the knock off products, those are sales lost to the actual product. You can steal without directly taking from somebody, you just intercept what they would have received.
That is exactly right. Just like violating somebody's patent, a copyright is intellectual property too. Not only are the infringers intercepting income from the creator, customers may be creating lower quality items that change the public's perception of the creators company, they may be asking the creators company for refunds on defective knock-offs. In the case of Bell Motorcycle Helmets in the 1980s, the creator can be sued for defective merchandise that they didn't even create. Once the court was informed the defective helmet was a counterfeit, the attorney asked a bell Executive, "what has Bell done to prevent counterfeits in the marketplace?"

Finally, consumers may not like it but counterfeiters disrupt supply and demand and, therefore they disrupt the pricing of goods sold by the creator. After all, which would you rather buy the $5 counterfeit or the $30 official jersey.
 
Last edited:

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
Copying art or even duplicating a coffee mug with a trademarked image does steal, just in a different way: when people buy the knock off products, those are sales lost to the actual product. You can steal without directly taking from somebody, you just intercept what they would have received.
...
That's an excellent point and one I understand. As a business owner for many years I have been involved in civil action, both suing others and being sued by others.

Civil action makes a claim. The claim is that someone's actions have cost your business money. Then it requires a proof.

So if I build a heap of copied Ferarris and sell them, Ferarri have an excellent civil case that my actions have taken their IP and cost them actual $$. A great case for proof of theft.

But if I see a Ferarri and make one in my home garage for my own use, they have very little proof for their case that my actions have cost their business money.

That is backed up by the facts and case precedents re IP and patent ownership vs individuals. If you read someone's patent and then make one for your own use you are pretty much sue proof. They can't touch you.

Back to your original argument, it requires proof that your actions have cost the company money it would have received. So if there was no way I was ever going to buy a Ferrari, there can be no loss to them when I make my own using my own effort and equipment.

Their loss is only incurred IF I make one that I was actually going to buy. So an actual sale was lost. Almost impossible to prove for an individual. How can you prove someone WAS going to buy your product?

It is an important point for this forum, as we often see people asking to to build something. They see a commercial product, and cant affort or don't want to buy it, so we help them build a similar thing for themselves. That may or may not have an element of IP theft, and is a grey area that we as a community usually decide on a case by case basis. :)
 
Last edited:

spinnaker

Joined Oct 29, 2009
7,830
But I I see a Ferarri and make one in my home garage for my own use, they have very little proof for their case that my actions have cost their business money.

That is backed up by the facts precedents re IP and patent ownership vs individuals. If you read someone's patent and then make one for your own use you are pretty much sue proof. They can't touch you.
They have ample proof. Would they come after you? Probably not unless you made yourself noticeable like posting all over FB or youtube about your homebuilt car or you pissed them off some how.
 

bountyhunter

Joined Sep 7, 2009
2,512
That's an excellent point and one I understand. As a business owner for many years I have been involved in civil action, both suing others and being sued by others.

Civil action makes a claim. The claim is that someone's actions have cost your business money. Then it requires a proof.

So if I build a heap of copied Ferarris and sell them, Ferarri have an excellent civil case that my actions have taken their IP and cost them actual $$. A great case for proof of theft.

But if I see a Ferarri and make one in my home garage for my own use, they have very little proof for their case that my actions have cost their business money.

That is backed up by the facts and case precedents re IP and patent ownership vs individuals. If you read someone's patent and then make one for your own use you are pretty much sue proof. They can't touch you.

Back to your original argument, it requires proof that your actions have cost the company money it would have received. So if there was no way I was ever going to buy a Ferrari, there can be no loss to them when I make my own using my own effort and equipment.

Their loss is only incurred IF I make one that I was actually going to buy. So an actual sale was lost. Almost impossible to prove for an individual. How can you prove someone WAS going to buy your product?

It is an important point for this forum, as we often see people asking to to build something. They see a commercial product, and cant affort or don't want to buy it, so we help them build a similar thing for themselves. That may or may not have an element of IP theft, and is a grey area that we as a community usually decide on a case by case basis. :)
Not really. The Feds have been going out and arresting people who sell knock offs en masse without having to prove the buyers would or would not have ponied up th extra money for the original authentic item. Ripping off or copying copyrighted material is a crime, and whether or not you get arrested ultimately depends on your size and how much $$$ you are getting and how many resources the LE has to divert to the so called "victimless crimes"..... which is to say, no victims who had a gun stuck in their face.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,082
That is backed up by the facts and case precedents re IP and patent ownership vs individuals. If you read someone's patent and then make one for your own use you are pretty much sue proof. They can't touch you.
Research is the (currently truly narrow) exemption (that might have to be proven in court as common law or statutory (like the generic drug testing exemption from congress) experimental use). Neither single quantity copies nor personal use is a general exemption to the patent protection.
 
Last edited:

THE_RB

Joined Feb 11, 2008
5,438
They have ample proof. Would they come after you? Probably not ...
So what proof do they have? They have practically zero proof that me building my own ferarri car has cost them money.


Bountyhunter said:
...
Not really. The Feds have been going out and arresting people who sell knock offs en masse without having to prove the buyers would or would not have ponied up th extra money for the original authentic item
...
Arresting officers don't have to prove. When it goes to court the court appointed prosecutor has the burden of proof of guilt.

And I agree! Someone who copies bulk, exact copies of a company's product and sells them to the public looks a LOT like a thief and may not be hard to prove at all in court.

But that's not my point, my point was about making one for yourself which may or may not be an act of theft depending on the circumstances.

Theft requires that the victim incurs a loss.
 

bountyhunter

Joined Sep 7, 2009
2,512
But that's not my point, my point was about making one for yourself which may or may not be an act of theft depending on the circumstances.

Theft requires that the victim incurs a loss.
Exactly. The loss he incurs because you did not purchase the copyrighted material. Instead, you made an illegal copy.
 

GopherT

Joined Nov 23, 2012
8,009
So what proof do they have? They have practically zero proof that me building my own ferarri car has cost them money.




Arresting officers don't have to prove. When it goes to court the court appointed prosecutor has the burden of proof of guilt.

And I agree! Someone who copies bulk, exact copies of a company's product and sells them to the public looks a LOT like a thief and may not be hard to prove at all in court.

But that's not my point, my point was about making one for yourself which may or may not be an act of theft depending on the circumstances.

Theft requires that the victim incurs a loss.

What is the difference between copying software, a DVD or a Ferrari for personal use? What is the reason for copying music if it us not for personal use.

What would you do with this copied Ferrari when you are done with it? Crush it and throw it away? Sell it? Who would you show the car to during its lifetime? Would people change their view of Ferrari by seeing it? That is, if your car is lower in quality than people expect then people will think less of Ferrari.

Another aspect is perceived exclusivity. Like a country club. Some people in Ferarri's target market may decide not to get a Ferrari if RB can afford one. Rolex has suffered most most from this of all duplicated brands - some handbags suffer too, now.
 
Last edited:

Thread Starter

takao21203

Joined Apr 28, 2012
3,702
Trading an 1 dollar item for 30 dollar- there are too many people involved who actually do nothing but live off that difference.

Stealing a pure intellectual property is something different.

i mean, I have original computer books. Can I carry them around and use them anytime I want to? No.

So, I take some PDFs off the net.

I still regularily make financial contributions via the means of handing over money in book stores.

I don't say, books should be free, or it is OK just to use PDFs.

but since I do make a compensation over time, I don't see it wrong TO TAKE ADDITIONAL PDFs in order to use books anytime anywhere.

In my college time I spent so much money for music CDs- these managers, agencies, promoters, DJs, organizers, studio and reccord label owners dont give a SH** about anything.

Today hip, make a pile of cash, tomorrow out of fashion, drop into trash (and buy new songs).

-I don't distribute free music or movies
-I don't distribute cracked software or illegal copies

Most softwares are somehow available for free, or there are free alternatives (for instance LINUX, Blender, Audacity, Freemake, countless others).

2

Who will really download a computer book PDF with complicate maths and use it professionally, and still not wanting to pay for it?
Most of these people who download it are maybe just hoarding PDFs. They would never buy it anyway. maybe some of them will buy some of the PDFs as books some day.

It is more a question of encountering information about them online in the first place at all.
 
Top