81–90 of 168 posts
I've got another less exciting reason how it ended up there... someone at Sony or one of their contractors found it on here: http://www.iconarchive.com/show/oxygen-icons-by-oxygen-icons... It says there "commercial usage allowed". They probably didn't even know it was from KDE.
This leads me to a legal question about GPL stuff.. Say the guys at KDE threw their full legal might behind this- what would happen to Sony? Obviously they would be required to change it (or include the GPL licence), but is that all? What kind of 'damages' could be claimed in such a situation?.. ie what is the risk to Sony in doing this. NB i'm using this (somewhat trivial) example to talk about GPL violation more br…
A way to compensate is to link to the original artist page and maybe buy a license from him.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting. We should give the benefit of the doubt in cases regarding commercial use from copyright infringement. If its a 9 year old who is downloading a song, then she must be aware of copyright law and thus can't be given the same benefit of the doubt. That girl is a pirate. Is it just me who thinks this logic is wrong?
Of course she should be given the benefit of the doubt too. See, if you as an outsider want to make sure that all parties are held to the same standard then you should be willing to apply that standard to your worst enemy as well. Note that I am not in any way defending Sony or their conduct, I just want the same standard that I'd like to apply to downloading music to apply to this instance of possible copyright viol…
But my initial comment was mostly to acknowledge that we do not give the benefit of doubt to private persons, but we do to commercial entities. The law should be equal, but had this been a discussion about someone who downloaded songs, there wouldn’t have been a single comment questioning the validity of the accusation.
I don't think "pirated" is the right word.
Well, "pirated" is probably not the right word for anything less than armed robbery of a boat. But lately it's been used as a synonym of "copyright infringement", so maybe it applies.
But this is more like plagiarism, although I'd be fine with calling it stealing or theft, which have a pretty broad meaning colloquially.
Such a shame Sony pirated their artwork. Also, such a shame the article introduces Sony as "the company who created Audio CDs which installed a rootkit on Windows computer to try to stop people copying music", as if Sony needed introduction, especially for people that read the KDE blog. Maybe it would have been more effective to point them out in a matter-of-fact way, tell them to stop or to comply with the licence,…
The "blogs.kde.org" I would have hoped gave that away.
This leads me to a legal question about GPL stuff.. Say the guys at KDE threw their full legal might behind this- what would happen to Sony? Obviously they would be required to change it (or include the GPL licence), but is that all? What kind of 'damages' could be claimed in such a situation?.. ie what is the risk to Sony in doing this. NB i'm using this (somewhat trivial) example to talk about GPL violation more br…
Depend on the judge and jury. It could come down to damges per sold unit if Sony is seen as intentional breaking copyright law, especially from this point on after Sony has become aware of the issue. In more likeness, KDE can now prevent any future sale of VAIO if they want, but asking a judge for an injunction. Of course, this assume that the copyright law is sanely being interpreted. If we use movie/music version o…
Could KDE prevent sales of VAIO machines if they were now complaint? I guess not?
Is there ANY precedent for damages of this kind of situation? (particularly where wilful infringement was not long-continued) If not, it would seem there is an almost non-existent risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course she should be given the benefit of the doubt too. See, if you as an outsider want to make sure that all parties are held to the same standard then you should be willing to apply that standard to your worst enemy as well. Note that I am not in any way defending Sony or their conduct, I just want the same standard that I'd like to apply to downloading music to apply to this instance of possible copyright viol…
I agree that we should hold all parties to the same standard no matter who the party is, but commercial usage should add additional expectations from the defending party. Commercial use is commonly perceived as "worse" than if it's done for private/non-profit use. But my initial comment was mostly to acknowledge that we do not give the benefit of doubt to private persons, but we do to commercial entities. The law sho…
That just isn't true.
I don't think "pirated" is the right word.
What would you suggest as the right word? I mean, theft is theft, right, whether it's 9 songs, more than 3 sentences or an image. And using the image to make money, that compounds the theft, just like getting caught with lockpicks during a burglary. We have many important, wealthy sources saying that, so you can believe it.
This isn't the first time Sony's ripped artwork off. Back in early 2006 I left a webpage comment (haha, remember them?) with the admins at Digital Blasphemy (that CGI desktop wallpaper site everyone loved back in the day) because I was playing with a mate's Sony W800i mobile phone and noticed that they'd ripped off an image called 'Fluroescence' [1] to create an animated mobile background image - there's a whole seri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, "pirated" is probably not the right word for anything less than armed robbery of a boat. But lately it's been used as a synonym of "copyright infringement", so maybe it applies.
In the context of software, "piracy" has come to mean downloading and distributing copyrighted material. And I think it's fine to use it for that, even though it doesn't happen on the high seas (usually?). But this is more like plagiarism, although I'd be fine with calling it stealing or theft, which have a pretty broad meaning colloquially.