Quote:
Originally Posted by starrigger
Neither example is quite accurate, though I think Andrew's is closer.
|
No, it's not. In order to come at least close, the example would have to have you as the manufacturer of the car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrigger
I would restate the second example this way: you have taken a photo of my painting, which I have planned to release myself as photo prints, or perhaps as a poster--and you are giving prints away from a website on which you make a profit through subscriptions or advertising. Or conceivably even a site you run for no profit.
|
No, this goes further away from the real case. A closer version would be: you are selling printed copies of a painting that you made; one buyer makes a high resolution scan of it and posts it somewhere; someone finds it, and because you are clearly marked as the author, tells you that there is a digital version of your work online; you decide not to spend the time on making a scan yourself, and use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrigger
That's not exact, either. In the real case, what was handed to me (not by the "torrent specialist" who scanned and uploaded my book, but by a kindly fan) was a digital compilation of my own words, in the exact order in which I put them down. It was a surprisingly careful compilation. This person took the time to do it right. Why wouldn't I use that instead of paying someone to scan the book again in order to create the exact same digital compilation?
|
You're not getting my point: it's not a question of why not use it, but since you directly profited off the pirate's work, my question is: why complain about pirates, who don't profit off your work?
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrigger
But as a general breed, I think the illegal uploaders are behaving like parasites feeding on the creative work of others, whether for profit or egoboo.
|
This describes the publishing houses. The illegal uploaders are the ones who don't do it to make a profit.