Slashdot Mirror
Ebay Shop Scrapes Thingiverse, Sells Designs In Violation of Creative Commons (all3dp.com)
He Who Has No Name writes: A little over a week ago, Thingiverse user Loubie posted Sad Face! to Thingiverse, protesting the use — without permission — of their designs and those of others by JustPrint3D, an Ebay seller marketing physical prints of the designs in question (over 2,000 by some counts). Despite a terse and legally shaky denial of any wrongdoing by JustPrint3D, there are obviously multiple violations of various iterations of the Creative Commons licenses (several forms of the CC license are options for Thingiverse uploaders to assign to their Things when uploading, and one is the default). Now MakerBot itself is wading into the uproar firmly on the side of its users, and has released a statement mentioning potential legal action.
Ebay only takes action against illegal things when there is bad press.
That is a smart and effective policy. There is no competitive advantage in being ethical if nobody notices.
Without that attribution, there is no license. You're saying, essentially, that the stuff in the store is all there for people to take, and the only crime the shoplifter committed was not paying for them. Exactly. Without paying, you're not allowed to take.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Said like a true sociopath!
Actual: Ebay Shop Scrapes Thingiverse, Sells Designs In Violation of Creative Commons
Q? who sells in violation? Ebay or Thingiverse...
Correct: Ebay Shop Scrapes Thingiverse, Who Sells Designs In Violation of Creative Commons
The other one yesterday:
Actual: Mercedes-Benz Swaps Robots For People On Assembly Lines
Q? Which way is it going people out or robots out
Correct: Mercedes-Benz Removes Robots For People On Assembly Lines
Or is this a new strategy Huffinghtonpost style - creating questions in headlines to make people look at content - new in the beginning but now sucks overall.
Implicitly. Sigh... Wouldn't the clarity be helped tremendously, if the write-up specified, what the explicit problem was: absence of attribution? And if the write-up is wanting in clarity, is not fair to accuse it of being "screwed-up"?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Said like a true business leader!
FTFY.
Not sure I'm seeing what was fixed there...
Hate to say this but it's true. Many, I dare say most, people aren't actually interested in learning. They're not interested in constructive dialogue. They're not interested in changing their minds when presented with new information. They aren't interested in honest debate. They're not interested in accepting that they're wrong and adjusting their beliefs accordingly. They're sure as hell not interested in improving themselves because improving themselves involves both work and admission that they're less than perfect.
And, more on topic, scraping is a more specific type of copying. Being specific is a good thing. It means less confusion for those who actually understand the issues. Those who don't understand the issues probably don't have opinions of any value and can be discounted or ignored. Why they feel compelled, or perhaps entitled, to have a valued opinion is probably also a matter of ego - akin to needing to admin that they're not perfect in order to be willing to learn.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."