RE: (META) Re: MM porn/copying

[Curtis Bay]

Please, add the META to the subject or take it offline.

=================================================


>>Anything posted on the Internet is open to attack unless you spend the

money to copyright it.  End of story.<<


That is simply not true. When I create something and publish it, I own the

copyright by virtue of the fact that I created it (unless I transfer the

copyright--i.e. work for hire, etc.). See the URL that Adam so graciously

provided if you still need to get a clue:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html  This is the law. It stands

in court. It has and hopefully always will. True, if I pay to copyright it,

my case is easier, but it's *not* a requirement to win a copyright

infingement case. That you think it is, makes all of your other arguments

faulty. I am personal aware of several individuals who have sued and won

for copyright infringement. They spent no money for copyright protection

(beyond the money they spent on sueing the perpetrator.


Now, in practice, you are actually right more often than not. That is,

thousands and thousands of people get away with copyright infringement all

of the time. While many cases could go to court, they don't because it's

too expensive, not worth it, etc. In this light, you are sadly correct.

However, it's also true that people who assume that they will "get away

with it" get sued a the time and people who listen to myths such as yours

get sued a lot because they engaged in copyright infringement without even

knowing they were doing something wrong.


>>IMHO you are labeling it the way you want to, to suit your own

agenda.>>


LOL!! Indeed! That's the most flagrant example of the pot calling the

kettle black that I've ever seen in some time.


>>Please DO NOT bring religion into this. I don't care if you're a Christian

or a Booda, or a Frog.  It has nothing to do with the subject, and it does

not place you above others.>>


I did not indicate that it did. It was a point of contrast--a method of

communicating a point by demonstrating that one "extreme" can coexist with

another. Why is every mention of faith an occassion to blow said metion out

of proportion? Sheesh! Hundreds of things are mentioned that have little or

nothing to do with the subject of Macromedia Flash--but mention religion

and some people can't help but go balistic on ya.


>>Get used to it.<<


No, I, and--thankfully--many others, will not "get used to it." Steal my

work: expect a consequence (if at all possible). Get inspired by my work:

how nice, good for you.


I said:


>Creating works which reflect

>inspiration from other creative works is a perfectly legitimate practice.


Wayne said:


A correct and reasonable assumption.  But then, you do a 180...


Hardly. That you think I did is indicative of the fact that you are unaware

of the difference between being influenced by a work and stealing it.

Although, in truth, I doubt that you are *actually* unaware of the

difference--I would assume that you prefer that there not be a difference.

It is clear that you prefer to see things in a highly carefree light.

However, it is you, not I, that does not have "back."


 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

To UNSUBSCRIBE send: unsubscribe flasher in the body of an

email to

list-managershocker [dot] com

.  Problems to:

ownershocker [dot] com

N.B. Email address must be the same as the one you used to subscribe.

For info on digest mode send: info flasher to

list-managershocker [dot] com

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To UNSUBSCRIBE send: unsubscribe flasher in the body of an

email to

list-managershocker [dot] com

.  Problems to:

ownershocker [dot] com

N.B. Email address must be the same as the one you used to subscribe.

For info on digest mode send: info flasher to

list-managershocker [dot] com