Commodore USA puts Marko Hirv's name back

[Belial6]

And another post containing copywritten material that also complains about people posting material under copyright hits amiga.org.

[Belial6]

Well, there is this thing called business ethic, and it appears this guy has never heard of it. Perhaps this is a matter of cultural differences too? I find it totally unacceptable business practice to steal and abuse art work.

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you work with Windows on a regular basis?  If so, it would seem that business ethics only matter to you when it doesn't mean money in your pocket.  If that is the case, you seem to be confused about what ethics mean.

Personally I think you are wrong about this CUSA, and do not think you are unethical for using Windows to make money, but you don't get it both ways.  Either using Windows for work is unethical, or this guy is not.

[Belial6]

..or you're trying to make mashed potatoes out of dog turds and Pringles.

Or chicken banana ultra walk board phone?

Yes, I can string random words together too.  That doesn't change the fact that if you consider a company that commits copyright violations too unethical to do business with, you are a hypocrite for taking a different stance with other companies just because you can make a buck off of it.

[Belial6]

I have several Windows XP Pro virtual machines and Windows 7 Pro virtual machine for work (mainly for Office Live Meeting). I don't see the relevance though.


Uh what? You're right, I don't get it. You totally lost me.


Really, what are you on about? What does this Windows usage have to do with anything?

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with Windows or Microsoft.

The point is that Microsoft is well known for violating copyrights.  In fact, in DOS 6.0, they didn't even bother to remove the Stacker copyright notice.  They drove Stacker Inc. out of business even though Stacker was a product that was in high demand at the time.  That is just one example of where MS was blatantly violating copyright.  So, by your definition, they are a totally unethical company, and people should not do business with them.

Given that, what does that say about you and your use of Windows to make money?

[Belial6]

I am not acting like it's my work.

He might not. But that's beside the point.

He doesn't need to say anything. Until he does give explicit permission, the artwork cannot be used outside of "fair use" clause. Anything else is copyright infringement.

No, it really isn't.

1. It is used commercially for marketing purposes, without any permission from the author.
2. It's used as a design for a computer model, without any permission from the author.
3. The artwork has been modified, without any permission form the author.
4. At one point the author's name was removed from the artwork.


I will continue to discuss this issue up until either a) the unauthorized use ceases or b) the author gives his permission for the usage.

So, did you post that from your Apple computer?  You know the one made by the infamous trade mark violators?

[Belial6]

I'm not a big MS fan either, but I do like getting the facts strait....

Stacker - Microsoft

And I'm not sure sure about the demand. I spend my days as a tech warning people not to use it and then charging them to recover their data when they did. It had a short life. At the time I thought MS stealing their stuff and the subsequent suing was the best revenue generator Stac could have hoped for.

Plaz

Before you take that as the final word, I would suggest getting your hands on a copy of DOS 6.0.  Then do a dump.  I don't remember the exact file name, but Stacker's copyright notice is in the file.  MS did far more than violate a patent.

[Belial6]

I find much of what Piru says to be 'intellectually dishonest'.  I don't know if you (Piru) are claiming outrage over the letter of the law, or over the non-legal idea that ideas belong to people and shouldn't be used without permission.

If you are aguing the first, then to be anything but a hypocrite, you cannot be violation any other similarly laxly enforced laws.  I highly doubt that is the case.  Do you really refuse to sing happy birthday in public places?  Do you show the same moral outrage when other people do?  Do you make the same accusations against kindergarden teachers who read stories to their class as you do against CUSA?  While it would take a lawyer and court case to prove, I'm pretty sure that reposting another persons artwork in it's entirety is still a copyright violation (as you have done), does not fall under fair use.

If you are arguing the moral stance, then you have already shown yourself to be a hypocrite by using other peoples works without their permission right here in this thread.

[Belial6]

Legal issues and shouts of hypocrisy aside, stealing a picture someone else drew and erasing the artist's name from it to attempt to generate interest in a non-existent product is cheesy, and re-adding the artist's name (but leaving other changes made to the picture) after being caught is just comical.  Anyone lame enough to do that deserves whatever criticism they get.

So, you are calling Piru a theif then?

[Belial6]

Posting someone elses artwork in it's entirety without permission is NOT 'fair use'.  Posting a modified version of it in the same post does NOT make it 'fair use'.  The fact that it is not for profit does NOT make it 'fair use'.

Piru, you have not stated which angle you claim as your rational for calling other people names when you do the same things yourself.

tone007, you claim that using other people's artwork without permission is 'stealing'.  Piru has done this, so, by your definition, Piru would be a thief.  Or does it only count when it is someone that you have randomely decided to attack?

[Belial6]

@tone007
If your arguing the letter of the law, then there is no difference.  If you are not arguing the letter of the law, only the original artist can claim that CUSA deserves it.

@theleander
Fair uses CAN include commentary, education and of course parody, but they are not the only criteria.  Piru posted the entire work.  He did not post a piece of it.  While he certainly added commentary, claiming 'educational' is a pretty big streach.

Posting the entire Avatar movie online and putting a comment on the bottom is not 'fair use'.
Posting entire Harry Potter books online and putting a comment on the bottom is not 'fair use'.
Posting an entire copyrwritten picture and putting a comment on the bottom is not 'fair use'.

If adding a commentary under a copyrwritten work was all it took to circumvent copyright, then every warez and abandonware site on the internet would be in the clear overnight.

[Belial6]

@Piru
You did reduce the quality a bit, but certainly not enough to keep it from being able to compete with the (potential) commercial purpose of the original artwork.  You also did not need to post the entire image to comment on it, or to even show what you were commenting on.  Just the altared pieces would have sufficed.  I am sure that YouTube would like to be informed that reducing resolution and color depth is all that you need to do to circumvent copyright.  They could get away from having to deal with those pesky take down notifications.

You still have not answered whether you are throwing around insults over the letter of the law, or over the non-legal idea that he is 'stealing' property.

[Belial6]

@tone007
Since you are not arguing the letter of the law, then you are just being an ass to the guys at CUSA.  What you are doing is not 'lampooning' them.  You are outright and seriously calling them theives.  You are doing this because they used some really old image that the author likely doesn't even care about.