Commodore USA puts Marko Hirv's name back

[Bamiga2002]

No points for C=USA for this. It's also bad business behaviour. They should be more professional, now they are far from it IMO.

[ajlwalker]

No one did. As I've stated numerous times before I've been interested in copyright issues for a long time. I've posted about these things on a.org way before Commodore USA, for at least 5-6 years or so, probably longer.

Here's something from 2006 for instance:
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?p=321605
And similar from 2007:
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?p=321605
Some post from 2008:
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=384389&postcount=34

As for some suggestions that I would be doing this because I'd feel threatened by AROS: Oh please, while you're obviously entitled to believe whatever you want that is just way idiotic (or should I say intellectually dishonest). This has absolutely nothing to do with AROS or MorphOS.

As for Apple being the evil empire: Yes, they do have some policies and methods I find disgusting. Probably one of the reasons I've never paid Apple a single euro. I do like some of their HW though.


You feel confident about speaking in behalf of other people. I try to stand behind my own words and actions.

If some of you really feel tired of hearing about these things, just skip the threads I post to.

You use this "intellectually dishonest" line a lot.  I think I was the last person you called this, but after my reply you just shut up.  I never got an apology.

[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.

[tone007]

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.

[ssolie]

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.

I don't know if what he is doing with the picture is legal or not but the behaviour really does speak for itself. I wonder if his business partners are starting to think twice?

[Kronos]

@ssolie

Look at who his "buisness partners" are:

- some obscure licencing company holding a dated trademark
- the Bill&Barry-Show
- some chinese manufactors/dealers who will by next week start shipping the next wave of tamagotchies instead of crappy screenless laptops.

If the do think twice it's most likely along the line of "how can we suck some (more) money out of that fool".

[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?

[Piru]

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.

So, you are calling Piru a theif then?

You still seem to have hard time grasping the concept of fair use.

[Golem!dk]

Some touchy (or possibly daft?) people here, hold on to those grudges

[tone007]

So, you are calling Piru a theif then?

No, but I'd be interested to know how you got the idea that I was.

[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?

[tone007]

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?

Piru simply compiled proof of the stupidity of the man trying to make money off of someone else's artwork.  If you don't appreciate the difference there, you're hopeless.  

No one is randomly attacking Commodore USA.  They asked for it.

[the_leander]

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'.

Fair uses include commentary, education and of course parody.

His use of the work is to show the original unmodified work and the later modifications. That could easily come under either commentary or possibly under educational use.

He has provided information on the subject of copyright along with citation, he has provided commentary within this thread.

You are making an accusation of copyright infringement. The onus is on you to back it up.

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

He's not doing the same things himself. Unless you can now prove that Piru is in fact using the artwork outside of fair use, specifically to sell a product.

What's that? You can no more prove that than you could your accusation of everyone here being a hypocrite for disagreeing with you?

Damn, who saw that one coming...

Obvious troll is obvious.

[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.

[tone007]

@tone007
If your arguing the letter of the law, then there is no difference.

I am not, as I prefaced my previous post.

If you are not arguing the letter of the law, only the original artist can claim that CUSA deserves it.

A little more of your flawed logic.  If we're not going by the law, why would the right to take exception at Commodore USA's actions be reserved for the original artist?  Try to keep up with yourself.

Obviously, enough people think what Commodore USA is doing is pretty ridiculous, and are enjoying lampooning them.  They're allowed to do that.

[Piru]

Piru posted the entire work.

I did not. It's much smaller resolution and less colors. I did no changes to the artwork other than scale it down and reduce the colors.

To quote wikipedia: "The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original image. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as counterfeit artwork, pirate versions or for uses that would compete with the (potential) commercial purpose of the original artwork."

The entire scaled down image was needed to demonstrate the changes Commodore USA made. It would very hard to do so without displaying the image in question.

If you try to accuse me of something, please at least get your facts straight first.