Slashdot Mirror
Corbis Sues Amazon for Copyright Infringement
Gedvondur writes "The story ran in the WSJ today, that the Gates-owned image company, Corbis, is suing Amazon.com for copyright violations (PDF link). Apparently the suit was without warning to Amazon. Amazon will use the DMCA to defend itself. Link goes to copy of the WSJ article on Corbis's site."
I'm sure Amazon will just show they own a patent for it. They seem to have it for everything else
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Here's a link to news.com. Give Google news a shot, the piece is being carried by just about everyone.
Will this court case implode creating a black hole which sucks down all the braindead IP laws this country has created?
Photos.
that Corbis got permission from the Wall Street Journal to scan and redistribute it's copy as a pdf?
> Amazon will use the DMCA to defend itself.
Why does this give me a mental picture of a giant, half-naked female warrior beating off hordes of bad guys, armed only with a rolled up piece of paper?
Gotta get out more...
Note that this is in regard to Amazon Marketplace sellers. It's not Amazon that's actually selling the worthless pictures of celebrities.
I'd say that this sounds like a Kazaa-type situation. Don't shoot the messenger I guess.
Looks like the DMCA is a swiss army knife...
"Hi kettle, this is pot. You're BLACK!"
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
Only thing better would be if the news paper had an image of a computer screen with browser viewing the pictures in it...
uhh wait a min...
This article is very murky on details...
Does anyone have any idea how the Amazon marketplace system is set up and what causes them to say that "the way Amazon is organized may change the analysis from the eBay analysis...the more directly they're involved, the more they may seem like a traditional infringer" ?
This is a recurring issue of people abusing services provided to them. When people share copyrighted files on P2P networks, are the P2P networks responsible?
It seems now that there is an increasing trend toward making people responsible for their own actions (read: copyright violations), and in the current climate, Amazon may well win, although it doesn't look too pretty for the merchants.
But the news.com article says that "Corbis also accused the retailers of removing copy protection from the images in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act."
This could be an interesting test of the DMCA. It has stood up a lot but how well can it stand up against itself? Could the DMCA win again or could it finally fall down? One of them must lose, so will it be the DMCA, or instead could it be the DMCA? It really makes you think...
EXCELLENT poster, a credit to slashdot, WOULD MOD UP AGAIN A+++++++
First off, mod up parent, that was funny as hell :D
Secondly, I mean, come on... Not only is it a scan, but a terrible one at that. I'm going to snobbishly assume this article has no redeeming qualities on general principle! Pride in your work people, take some pride!
Although, if Amazon had taken some pride in their work and instead of ripping off photos, I guess this story wouldn't be here in the first place...
+ G to tha Izzo, A to tha Tizee, Talking Giz-oat, Ya'll Bettah Feel Me... +
So either Gates loses in court or the DMCA is exposed for the pathetic thing it is?? ...
;)
YES!
To play the devil's advocate (since many believe Microsoft is the devil), of course they don't like when people steal their IP, and of course they would sue. Would you not do the same?
And what IP do they steal? If they flat out steal IP would they not end up in court? I'm curious for specific examples of what you're talking about, not just generic "they're a buncha thieves" statements. I know that early on in their days they took discarded ideas from other companies and I know that many companies will copy the innovators and rebrand the ideas as their own, but what non-innovative corporations wouldn't copy the innovators if they don't get sued about it? And if it's a serious violation you're speaking of then wouldn't Microsoft get sued?
By the "amount and substantiality" doctrine and the "effect on the market" doctrine (see 17 USC 107 for details), distributing a minimal-bitrate MP3 file may count as fair use in some cases. For many of the purposes that minimal-bitrate MP3 files are put to, the "purpose and character" doctrine may apply as well.
Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.
Will I retire or break 10K?
DMCA == copyrights, not patents
Thing about the spirit of laws. There were laws already covering copyright infringement. And any one of them would cover what was "needed" but the dmca. Really copyright infringement isnt really a murky thing. and yet here we are.
That this article says that Corbis is using the DCMA. So does that mean they're both using it... and if so isn't it a win-win situation? If either one of the large-corp-backed or large-corp entities loses out without settling, then the DCMA gets a firm kick in the pants.
Is it my imagination, or have MS and affiliates been doing a lot of nice things for us lately? First going after spammers, now Amazon. I shouldn't go to sleep tonight... I'm afraid if I wake this will all have been a dream.
From the article on CNET....
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, alleges that Amazon and at least 15 poster and picture stores violated copyright law by selling the digital images outright or allowing sales to occur through their sites. Corbis is seeking up to $150,000 for each work sold.
Just for those that can't be bothered reading it. It all seems reasonable to me.
Amazon is obviously innocent. While Corbis claims that they are a "professional stock photo agency", that's clearly not possible: no company that puts out a crappy scan of a copyrighted story in the WSJ as a "press release" could possibly either know anything about copyrights or digital imaging. They must be some sort of impostors. Whereever those Meg Ryan photos came from, they can't have come from Corbis.
What ever happened to exercising some civility and making the assumption that people and corporations do make honest mistakes and will typically try to fix the situation when such a mistake is pointed out.
I fully believe that Corbis should be able to defend it's copyrights in courts if necessary. However, from the article it seems that Amazon and it's affiliated partners would have fully cooperated with removing the infringing material if they were simply informed of the issue. Furthermore, I would like to think that some reasonable settlement could have been reached short of filing a lawsuit had the infringing companies actually made any money off the images in question.
However, this seems like the case of another company thinking it won the judicial lottery because they found a clear cut instance copyright infringement. From the way lawsuits are flying out of Corbis you would think the Earth came to a crashing halt because some dumb picture of Renee Holhoegger found it's way onto Amazon.
Am I being naive that such a mistake can be made and remedied with people acting like adults, or do the people running Corbis need to go back to nursery school to learn to play nice with other kids? Sheesh.
Now that same image belongs to Corbis. It's on their web site, but before they quote a price on an image, they make you specify what you're going to do with it. All their uses seem to be commericial. The closest I could come to my needs was to specify that I intended to put it up in the lobby of my business.
And after I go through all this, I'm told that online pricing for this image isn't available! Lame.
I try it again with an image of a person that doesn't have a greedy estate. I end up with a photo of this statue. A download will cost me $1700!
This is IP hoarding of the worst kind.
It's like putting Hilary Rosen and Ann Coultier into a spiked cage and fretting over who won't emerge.
I guess we all win this time.
The CNet article explains:
What are the requirements of the Amazon "trusted retailer" program? Are there any requirements that would either: (a) impose a duty on Amazon to supervise its third party sellers; or (b) put Amazon on notice of copyright wrongdoing by same? (Such notice may then create a duty to supervise.)
Further, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reportsreports:
While Amazon may (or may not) be liable for the items third parties sell through its website, perhaps Amazon is responsible for the images that it allows to be posted on its website. In other words, perhaps Amazon is the "author" of its website, and thus strictly liable for any copyright infringements published therein.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer article goes on to state:
I'm not sure what these "little more blantant" acts were. Again, perhaps the publishing of the copyrighted images on the website itself.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
MS's legal staff occupies 2 whole buildings. And they have nothing to work on. So why not sue Amazon?
Corbis attacks with IP violation suit.
Amazon strikes with DCMA +0.
Corbis resists !
Amazon conjures rapid laywers.
Corbis conjures Bill Gates.
Amazon conjures David Boies.
Bill Gates attacks with incompatible IE +6.
David Boies strikes with countersuit.
Countersuit misfires !
Judge drops dead laughing !
Bill Gates integrates IE into Windows.
Corbis conjures more laywers.
Amazon casts press release at Bill Gates.
Bill Gates resists !
David Boies casts Chebacca defense.
Chebacca defense misfires !
Amazon loses !Judge orders Amazon to pay 10000000 $ !
Well, there was that thing with STAC about on-the-fly compression for hard drives. They did end up in court and they lost, owing STAC $120M. They got $14M back in counter-suit, but they were definitely found guilty of patent infringement.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
That's what I did. Got the image for free too.
Amazon's defense seems to be based on one of the few not-so-evil provisions in the DMCA: that ISPs cannot be blamed for the actions of their users ("common carrier" status). This will all hinge on whether or not Amazon's third-party listings are more like a service provider or a publisher.
IANAL, but this will be interesting.
tedious at best.
Ooh! I found more details! Apparently, after this, Microsoft paid STAC $43M for the patent infringement, bought $40M of their stock and cross-licensed each other patents. STAC took the deal rather than fight appeals for years and years.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
So while they have a case against the person selling the photos I don't think they have one against Amazon itself (unless it was made aware of the fact and failed to take action - which is not the case).
This case is akin to charging a newspaper with theft because someone advertised something that turned out to be stolen in the trading post section or pimping because of the classified section.
The only reason Amazon is the target is because it has more money.
Many are evolving into the cells of a new species of something called "corporations."
Perhaps this will be settled by an agreement that Microsoft can use buttons in their applications without paying license fees to Amazon.
Back in the days before lawyers decided that the Constitution guaranteed them a percentage of everything, a part share in a couple of hotels and a condo, and a different colored SUV for every day of the week, good lawyers could write a letter that would start the process of negotiation without egos getting inflamed and everything ending up in court. It's better for business that way. But now CEOs are terrified of not being seen to do everything possible to extract every last cent and inflate the share price, and I suspect law firms milk this. Eventually the tide of opinion will turn, perhaps when those same CEOs decide to blame the tide of lawsuits for current underperformance and start to lobby government to fix the problem. Cynical? Yes. Realistic? Maybe
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
ObJoke:
Q: What are 20,000 lawyers on the bottom of the Northern Sea?
A: A good start.
They're just sharing the article with people so they can sample it, see if this article makes them curious enough to buy the whole paper.
Isn't part of the requirements of breaking copyright law (which is a civil tort in most cases) willfull violation?? How could Amazon be breaking copyright law if they did not know that the images were copyrighted? Is a bookstore liabel if they obtain pirated copies of a book through a legitimate reseller with no knowledge or reasonable expectation that the copies are not genuine articles? Otherwise there is a hell of a hole in the law where you are liabel for up to $150K per work for doing nothing wrong other than failing to do an exhaustive search for any copyright holders.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
What do expect from an image processing company owned by Bill Gates!
Given the exposure that SCO is getting from their IBM lawsuit, this is probably just a ploy by Corbis to sell images.
Had you ever heard anything about Corbis before?
Adobe PDF to HTML Conversion page
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
I am not usually this paranoid, but why, after reading this article, do I suspect that Amazon will shortly be announcing that they will be reselling Microsoft's music service instead of Apple's iTunes Music Store...
I just used the DMCA to get back control of my personal website from the ISP that was holding it hostage. Without the DMCA, I would have had to fight in district courts over copyrights, it would have taken me months and many bucks spent on shyster lawyers. But a single DMCA affadavit and bam, my personal work is back under my control.
MS are taking legal action against spammers, that didn't go down to badly with slashdotters.
It'll be interesting to see ifslashdotters feel the same about this particular case.
Live at the Atlantic Studios (1977)
(Young, Young, Scott)
Well it's a dog eat dog
Eat cat too
The French eat frog
And I eat you
Businessman, when you make a deal
Do you know who you can trust?
Do you sign your life away?
Do you write your name in dust?
CHORUS:
Hey, hey, hey
Every dog has his day
It's a dog eat dog
Dog eat dog
Dog eat dog
Read the news
Someone win
Someone lose
Up's above and down's below
And limbo's inbetween
Up you win, down you lose
It's anybody's game
CHORUS
And it's a eye for eye
Tooth for tooth
It's a lie
That's the truth
See a blind man on the street
Looking for something free
Hear the kind man ask his friends
"Hey, what's in it for me?"
CHORUS
[My english is better than most other people's Turkish, so please point out mistakes politely. Thank you.]
What you were linking to is the Swisstool, not the Swiss Army Knife. Rather look at this page for reference. Ok, I have to admit that yours look more like a Leatherman Tool after all ;)
"We are of course willing to discuss options to resolve this with Amazon," Mitchell said. "Our goal is to put a stop to this activity. There's a component of this that requires our photographers to be compensated and to put steps in place to prevent this from happening again."
If they get $150,000 for each infrginement - how much of that do you think will go back to the original photographer? Right $0.00.
Companies like this have a right to protect their IP, but it's insulting to make it seem like they're doing it for some altruistic reason.
And there's me thinking patents (and the patent system itself) are bad.
On Slashdot, they're only bad when used against any company except Microsoft.
I keep reading on Slashdot things like: Copyright and patent infringement are civil matters, not theft, the patent system is broken anyway, etc
But whenever Stacker is mentioned (and it does seem to be a very popular stick to beat MS's record with), patent infringement apparently is thought to be theft, and the patent system ain't so bad after all.
Oh come on, while I don't know the specifics of the Stac vs MS case... I still think, as a general opinion: Patenting sofware = Bad always, no matter who is the target.
Wait a minute... Amazon actually has money?!?
So I did a brief search, and it appears they have photos which infringe my copyright too, so come on you armchair lawyers, whats my next move?
Do I wait for Corbis to win? I'm based in the UK, is it better to sue in the US?
Come on guys give it up, I'll give you ten percent...
They are copying this image willfully, there is no accident.
The question that is more important is if they made a reasonable attempt to ensure they had permission to do so. If they just "found it on the net" they're in trouble. If someone who could have reasonably owned the copyright had frauduelently sold it to them, they are probaly not in so much trouble.
Who is this Renee Holhoegger ?
/. Seems awfully risky in this day and age.
And as a side question: are you certain you are entitled to use the name Renee Holhoegger in a public forum such as
An AC in the crowd.
Raw sewage is bad. Always.
Gallons of raw sewage shovelled down Bill Gates' trousers (US pants) with elastic bands wound round his ankles is good. Always.
There is no contradiction.
YAW.
Why am I anonymous?
Slashdot (or Opera) is broken.
YAW.
(You're All Wrong)
Your head of state is a corrupt weasel, I hope you're happy.
...However, this seems like the case of another company thinking it won the judicial lottery because they found a clear cut instance copyright infringement...
I think you hit the nail on the head. While I agree with and support the right of individuals (and, grudgingly, corporations) to persue blatant (I mean out-and-out) infringements on IP, this lawsuit seems like just such a sham. Especially telling towards this end are: 1) the fact that Corbis is suing Amazon (which has the money) instead of the small retail shops; 2) they are continuing on with the lawsuit despite Amazon's stated best efforts to rectify the situation; 3) they are seeking "several forms of relief, including maximum... damages of up to $150,000 per copyrighted work infringed"; and 4) they are claiming "hundreds" of works infringed (bet real money that the figure turns into 'thousands'). There's defending your IP and then there's DEFENDING your IP. $$$$$
In this case I'm not even so sure of that since you can buy access to the corbis site for a relatively modest fee (it's a few hundred clams, intended for professionals). From there you can download the "unprotected" images in very large (~2000 x5000 pixels) format.
Perhaps, those ideas were not always discarded but not know as much by others ...
There are basicly 2 situations that could have arised - the one you advocate and the one that did. That is, 1) they could inform Amazon there are copyrighted images for sale, Amazon goes "whoops our bad" and Corbis now becomes an Amazon watchdog group, or 2) Corbis threatens to sue the pants off Amazon for copyrighted images, Amazon says "We are never letting these images on our site again" and Amazon becomes an Amazon watchdog group. All depends where you see the responsibility falling.
nt
Using the Homeland Security tool "Deep Scan" we have uncovered proprietary bits of SCO code in the WSJ scan.
Make that 10 Billion in small bills...
This is just another example of big companies trying to throw their weight around. I mean seriously, anybody with business sense would just ask them to remove the items in question instead of burning bridges behind them. What happens now when MS/Corbis *wants* to use Amazon to sell something of theirs? This all seems like a good way to make enemies
My other sig is an import.
Corbis sues Amazon. Corbis is owned by Bill Gates who is also founder and a major stake/share holder in Microsoft. Amazon uses Linux to power its web site (I think this is a fact). Now if Amazon will just switch to Win2000, MS IIS, MS SQL Server, and other MS products the lawsuit will be quietly dropped. Could this be the real reason that the lawsuit was filed without first notifying Amazon to remove these items from sale.
IANAL and other disclaimers apply. I am just a thinking human being.
Pardon my insensitivity, but whooptie friggin doo. A man was put into JAIL for months under the name of the DMCA, and was later released without being charged. That is like saying the Patriot Act is a good law because they may have caught someone who could possibly have been a suspected terrorist, while there are hundreds of people being held in outdoor cells in Guantanamo with no trial or legal representation. Gee, slavery wasn't that bad, because some people made some money on it, and black people might not even be in this great land without it.
Hey, I am all for the little guy using the DMCA if it helps him out, but there is absolutely no reason for you to say it is a good law because of that. Say that it helped you, so it can aid the little guy too, but DON'T say it is a good law.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Could you care to explain your reasoning that patents (not just the system) are bad? Or is this just limited to software?
HBO: 7 PM: "Gorilla Warfare" Starring Billy Gates and Jeff Bezos. Two 900 pound gorillas duke it out over their massive collections of copyrights and trademarks. Watch as Bezos invokes the DMCA after Gates attacks him with a chair! Rated "R" for extreme violence.
Really, though... Am I the only one who just read the story on Slashdot and cracked up laughing? It's just too funny for words.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
[Microsoft vs. Stac Electronics....] but [MS] were definitely found guilty of patent infringement.
Are you sure it wasn't Copyright? My (mis?)understanding was that Microsoft literally copied parts of the binary of Stac's software in order to "share" it with all users of the next version of DOS. Or perhaps it was to "add value" to DOS so more people would upgrade? But it definitely was so that there would be no remaining reason to buy from Stac, thus destroying them.
Whether Microsoft perhaps thought that copying someone else's binary into their own product might be against the law was obviously secondary to the fact that they thought they could bankrupt Stac and drag the suit out long enough to just make them disappear. And countersue for $14 Million.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
MS's legal staff occupies 2 whole buildings. And they have nothing to work on.
Perhaps this works like government. It can get bigger, but never smaller. Like once you open a can of worms the only way to re-can them is to use a larger can.
If this is true, then the completely ineffective antitrust trial may have been counterproductive. It gave lawyers something to do, and grew Microsoft's legal department.
On the other hand, maybe they do have something to work on. Seems like we haven't heard our daily gossip about SCO yet. So I thought I'd bring it up.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
What ever happened to exercising some civility and making the assumption that people and corporations do make honest mistakes and will typically try to fix the situation when such a mistake is pointed out.
What planet are you from? Let me give you some background. Corporations make mistakes. Individuals commit crimes. An example of the former type of mistake: Oh, we booked $4 Billion of loss as if it were $4 Billion of profit. Ooops. Sorry. Example of the latter type of crime: you picked up an envelope with a sewing pattern out of the trash and had the gall to think you could sell it, or even posses it?
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
i don't know who i should be cheering for.
obvious patent-happy amazon and the dmca? or gates and, indirectly, m$ world domination.
this ground my finite state machine to a halt.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
You are guilty of infringement when you, yourself, reproduce, distribute or make derivative works without consent, unless certain defenses apply (fair use, first sale, more money than the plaintiff to defend yourself, etc.).
You may also be guilty of infringement if you contribute to another person's infringement (think "aiding and abetting"), or if you have a master-agent relationship with the infringer. However, you are not responsible under these rules all the time. As a threshold matter, you are never responsible unless the primary individual is actually guilty of an infringement (that is, you can assert all of his defenses). Also, both for contribution and vicarious infringement, you generally have to have a guilty state of mind, often requiring, at least, imputed knowledge of the direct infringement. For contribution, there is also a number of other rules, such as the modern version of the Supreme Court's Sony "substantial noninfringing use" test, whereby you are off the hook if the technology is capable of a substantial noninfringing use, except in cases where the defendant's corporate name ends in "ster."
When the Church of Scientology sued Netcom for contributing to the infringements of its customers, Netcom prevailed, as I recall on summary judgment, by pointing out that it had no reason to know of the infringement, and thus could not be liable for contribution. This District Court opinion was later codified in the DMCA "internet provider" safe harbor rules. Note that whether or not the DMCA gives Amazon a defense, Amazon can always fall back on general rules of contribution, including Netcom.
Ok, I know I'm being paranoid, but could this have an affect on the SCO case? SCO is alleging that Linus allowed infringing code into the Linux kernel, Linus says he never checks the code for copyright infringment.
So if Corbis wins this suit, Amazon (c.f IBM/Linus) must ensure nothing they claim as their copyright (or GPL) (which has been contributed by an unrelated 3rd party) can infringe on anybody else's copyright.
I am probably being paranoid, I just went from 'Gates owned company' to 'lawsuit' to 'Linux', that's all.
It's the first post regarding the issue.
My understanding (IIRC) was that MS bought a competing
company (DoubleDisk?) and incorporated their technology
into DOS (version 6) as "Doublespace" compression.
DoubleDisk apparently had copied parts of Stac technology
which made MS liable in turn for patent infringment.
"But it definitely was so that there would be no remaining
reason to buy from Stac, thus destroying them."
Yeah, that's why the first version of Doublespace was so crappy that it
sent users in droves back to Stacker or Superstor programs as a safer
alternative.
After MS lost the suit, they brought out a newer version of compression
branded as "Drivespace" which fixed internal bugs and removed infringing
code.
The countersuit was for patent infringement on Stac's part, who had
used the code that allowed the compression engine to load as part of
the boot process, instead of later as a system driver.
The last I heard of Stac, they had gone back to using their compression
technology in tape backup compression, where it had come from in the
first place.
The move by MS to include drive compression was to "add value"
to DOS and compete with a then growing segment of the user market
(those preferring the use of compression over the cost of newer
hard drives back then).
I don't recall that the courts determined (or cared) whether MS
was aware of where the Doublespace code came from when they bought
DoubleDisk. The fact that they had the code (motive or no) was
sufficient to find against them.
My former web services provider locked me out of my website due to a business dispute over their refusal to repair (or even acknowledge) bugs in their proprietary front-end. After the lockout, they maliciously kept the site up, hoping to spread confusion amongst web searchers about where my current site is located. Web searches were diverted from my lowly independent site to the same content on their highly-rated site, diverting my audience to the old dead site. I had a backup of the site, so I only sought to have the old site deleted. The provider had repeatedly agreed to remove the site but they never did, they were lying to me. I could easily have hacked into the site and deleted it myself, but that would have been illegal.
Fortunately I posted copyright notices on each page I wrote before I lost control of the site. I filed a DMCA complaint with the upstream provider, demanding removal of my copyrighted content or else they must disconnect the server from the net. I just followed the instructions on the www.chillingeffects.org site (which ironically is an anti-DMCA site with the best information on how to use the law). I just whipped together a nice PDF copied from a successful DMCA complaint by Dow Chemical. The upstream ISP was in the process of pulling the plug on the web provider's primary server when the assholes at the provider finally realized they better relinquish control of my site, and they caved in and deleted the site. Victory for the little guy!
To respond to a separate reply to my message, you're bringing up a strawman to mention Elcomsoft. All you've proven is that there are bad lawmen, not that the DMCA is a bad law. Elcomsoft is a spamware seller and they all belong in a Gulag at hard labor, not Club Fed.
eBay makes it clear who the seller of merchandise is, and also has clear-cut policies for reporting abuse, in theory.
Amazon.com is, well, Amazon.com. They don't seem to have much in the line of differentiation as to who one is doing business with. If Amazon.com is the group who receives my credit-card payment, then they are who I am effectively doing business with, especially if I can do many purchases from many different sources that Amazon.com uses without having to do a seperate transaction.
If Amazon.com has its way. Walmart could also be considered a "service provider", since they stock many, many products that are supplied by outside vendors but aren't their own. It's up to the retailer to determine what is legal to carry.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Just sue some other company for a few million or even a billion. You think it will catch on? Let's see if this helps bring us a better economy. As a side note, is there no more cease and desist letters issued?
If Kerry was the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
The UN - The largest "political" cause of death.
How about the freakin' newspaper he copied and posted, wonder if he got permission to do that? Somebody ought to turn his ass in for it...
If Kerry was the answer, it must have been a stupid question.
The UN - The largest "political" cause of death.
In the recent issue of Corbos v.s. Amazon the two retailers have reached an agreement and both sides have dropped their suits. In the new agreement, Amazon will continue to provide materials and information from third parties, while Corbis will notify Amazon promptly if further infringements are found. Amazon and Corbis are now joining forces and suing the parties responsible for posting the images in question. An executive from Amazon was quoted as saying 'We agree with Corbis that this was a clear violation of the DMCA. These pirates must be held accountable for their theft.'
We will have further news as the situation warrants.
You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
At least then I won't be subjected to imprisonment for making a decision she did not approve of. You do recall that provision in her Healthcare reform attempt don't you? Go to a doctor of YOUR choice and you and your doctor can be put in jail.
Oh yeah, she's about freedom as much as Hitler is.
A.C.you can pass off some of her views as extreme without having to worry they will bite you in the ass because she isn't running for office. She makes her mark by people buying her stuff, good old fashioned capitalism, while the other makes a living off of giving your stuff away...
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
What Amazon says in their "Terms and Conditions" is completely irrelevant here, because the copyright holder isn't sueing as an Amazon customer. EULAs only matter to parties to the EULA.
EBay tries to maintain more of an arms-length relationship. The money doesn't go through eBay at all for eBay merchants that accept credit cards. (PayPal raises some questions because eBay owns it.)
So this isn't an issue for ISPs. It's strictly a problem for online resellers, who need to be regulated more anyway.
Someone I know is in the envelope and packaging business. He made about 10% of all diskette envelopes, and a few years back was making the transition to packaging for CD's. He designed and got IP protection on one of his designs for a CD envelope. Microsoft came around looking to buy packaging for a CD to be shipped with a book. He showed them some samples, but they never got back to him. Then Gates's book hits the street with a CD wrapped up in a copy of one of the samples. They simply ripped it off. Envelope maker went to his lawyer and lawyer advised him against getting involved in a legal battle with MS, even though it was obviously stolen design.
My impression of the Stacker thing is not yeah for patents. It's yeah for smiting hypocrites with their own medicine. It's nice to see M$ get smited by the very same evil machinations they bully everybody else with.
Yes it's a copyright violation -- IF the seller is selling copies he created. For example, you can sell the issues of SI or Saturday Evening Post covers you bought. You just can't make your own copies and sell them (for that matter you can't make copies...I doubt anyone's going to go for the "backup archive" excuse here :-) ).
As to stating BillGates' connection is irrelevant: well, a number of years ago Gates and/or M$oft started buying up video, photo, and other image collections. People warned at the time that he was heading for some sort of market control. It may be completely legal but this *is* what he's doing.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
First of all the people complaining about software patents aren't always the same people who cheer when Microsoft gets hit by them. And secondly Microsoft is leading the charge for software patents. Even if software patents are bad, it's still just deserts when Microsoft gets nailed for hipocracy.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I like your art, Andrew. It's like... Andy Warhole meets Tux Paint.
That impressionists draw like 5 year olds and jackson pollock was probably retarded. The accepted aesthetic always changes, dragging people like you along.
Photos.
If portions of Stac code were in Microsoft's binary, that is copyright, not patent infringement. A patent is when you publish a paper describing a new technology to the patent office, and you are granted temporary rights to using the process your paper described. Copyright is a protection on works of specific art. (e.g. computer code)
Oh wait I'm sorry, that's what I expect from you.
*sigh
Let's not miss the point. I don't think it's about Amazon's main website:
The complaint accuses Amazon of vicarious infringement for allegedly allowing its "trusted retailers" to offer Corbis images through its site.
"Amazon has failed to effectively supervise and control the infringing conduct of the supplier defendants," the suit says.
E.g., if I hose Corbis images on my ISPs website is my ISP guily of infringement? Of course not. Amazon is correct to use the DMCA
Read the article damn it.
You're contradicting yourself. If software patents are "generally" bad, then they're not "always" bad.
In any case, can you imagine a software algorithm so complex that it takes a PhD five years to develop and prove correct, and is so useful that it will double the sales of Microsoft Windows? I'm exaggerating, of course, but if that possibility even exists, I think the inventor deserves compensation for it, and needs some legal protection.
This is not to say that the USPTO doesn't issue far too many poor patents. The system is quite clearly broken, but I don't think you've presented evidence or argument that it cannot be fixed.
Stac Electronics, Goldtouch Technologies, Priceline.com, and Eolas have all sued Microsoft for infringing on their IP.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
That's what the big-media companies get for selling their articles as a newspaper instead of individually.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
In any case, can you imagine a software algorithm so complex that it takes a PhD five years to develop and prove correct, and is so useful that it will double the sales of Microsoft Windows? I'm exaggerating, of course, but if that possibility even exists, I think the inventor deserves compensation for it, and needs some legal protection.
That professor only deserves legal protection if he can afford a patent. No-one cares about enforcing the rights of a poor genius - let him stay poor.
This is from the DJ Site regarding licensing WSJ Content: http://www.djreprints.com/licensing/faq.html Owning a subscription to WSJ.com or a copy of The Wall Street Journal does not give you the right to republish or redistribute our content. The content available through our publications is the property of Dow Jones or its licensors and is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws. But for a few limited exceptions (such as displaying, reformatting, copying or printing for your own personal, noncommercial use), you cannot reproduce, retransmit, distribute, disseminate, sell, publish, broadcast or circulate the content received through our publications to anyone, including but not limited to others in the same company or organization, without the express prior written consent of Dow Jones. You can obtain Reprint Permission through the Licensing and Republishing section of this site or through Copyright Clearance Center. Looks to me like a lawsuit waiting to happen ;)
Let me see if I get this right. You don't own your own face, because somebody can make a copy of it with a camera and sell copies of the copy without your permission. However, that person owns that copy of your face and can sue anybody else for selling copies of their copy, and you don't get a nickel out of it.
Yeah okay, makes sense to me.
That a strawman about strawmen... It is a perfectly valid arguement to say that a law is BAD because it can be used to do bad things. It is not up to lawyers or judges to decide what is legal or illegial, they just *enforce* the laws.
You are essentially saying that traveling by rocket is perfectly safe because you got out alive... Eg. Just because a law can have some benefit, doesn't not negate it's negative pieces, especially when, in cases like the DMCA, it's negative uses are huge, and it's positive uses are few and rare.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
By your argument, murder should be legal because people can be framed and imprisoned for murders they did not commit.
You're an idiot.
No, that is completely wrong. Nobody has legalized frame-ups... In that case, all you have to do is provide evidence that you did NOT commit murder, and you will be let go.
Now, you can be prosecuted for copying a DVD, within the bounds of the law.
Ah yes, the last refuge of those that have nothing left to defend their argument... Insult the individual.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Notice the extensive use of the misnomer "laywer". Mind-bogglingly seductive.
"To respond to a separate reply to my message, you're bringing up a strawman to mention Elcomsoft. All you've proven is that there are bad lawmen, not that the DMCA is a bad law."
If a law allows people to be imprisoned with little evidence, engaging in behaviors that should be protected under fair use, it is a bad law. For every time the "little guy" has gotten a good result, it has been used dozens of times to muzzle detractors and prevent competition.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!