flatfish wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
High Plains Thumper wrote:
flatfish wrote:
Tim Smith wrote:
High Plains Thumper wrote:
Did Mr. Schestowitz defame the author? I think not.
Did he stretch the Fare Use clause in British
copyright law by posting this only image on the net?
Perhaps.
However, would the American author consider it
worthwhile to go after a college student, seeking
compensation on British soil for a personal
non-profit blog site with limited content and low
volume hits? That would be ridiculous. [/quote]
Of course, that has nothing to do with what Flatfish
is talking about, and you know that. Flatfish is
talking about the incident where Roy took the work of
a commercial artist, who sells licenses for the use of
that work on the net, and decided that if he (Roy)
gave credit to the artist, he didn't need to get a
license, even though Roy was using it in a way not
covered by fair use, and in a way to diminish the
market for the work. The incident where, when
informed that what he was doing was wrong, Roy did not
do the right thing (which 99% of us here would have
done) and immediately take down the image until he
could contact the artist and work something
out--instead he kept the image up for weeks, before
finally obeying the law and the artists requests, and
took it down.
Here we go again, the same old, tired rants, non-Linux
advocacy stuff being hounded on non-COLA issues 17 months
later. You have a way of making a mountain out of a mole
hill, don't you, Timmy?
If it is such a mole hill, why did you feel the need to
pretend you didn't know what Flatfish was talking about, and
instead talk about the images that come with Roy's CMS
software? Why couldn't you address Flatfish's point
directly?
I have you killfiled and would have not seen your comment.
Fortunately, flatfish responded and it came through.
Very simply put, you have a reading comprehension problem. You
have demonstrated deviance. You deliberately ignored my reply,
which addressed your question. You do your selective snippage,
in a failed attempt to alter opinion of those who have not read
the previous portion of thread. There is only one thing you care
to do. That is argue your senseless non-advocacy point into
oblivion. Thus by doing so, you indicate your only intent in
COLA is to troll.
And next time some company is accused of violating GPL, can
we expect to see you saying that we should ignore it? After
all, your position is that taking and using a work without
permission is OK (at least if it is Roy doing it...). Or is
code different--we should not rip of programmers, but
artists are fair game?
Your arguments are really tired, same aged nature, boring. You
are attacking the poster, not commenting on the content the
poster has posted. Let us review the charter of COLA again:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
[quote]
1.4 The Charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy
The charter of comp.os.linux.advocacy is:
For discussion of the benefits of Linux compared to other
operating systems.
That single sentence is the one and only charter of the
newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy. The newsgroup's charter is for
the newsgroup as a place for supporters of Linux to gather to
discuss Linux, for the betterment of the Linux community and the
promotion and development of Linux. It supports this as a place
for those who would like to learn more about Linux to come to
learn from those who know Linux. It does not call for it to be a
place where the anti-Linux propagandists to gather in order to
discredit Linux.
[/quote]
Exactly. And THAT is one reason why I, and some of the others
are here in COLA. While it's certainly entertaining observing
some of the more unstable Linux advocates, the real reason is
to expose the hypocrites for what they are.
That thread revealed much about the attitude of Roy
Schestowitz and his narcissistic behavior because it was
obvious that in his own mind he had the right to use those
images and who had the right to tell him he couldn't. Not even
the owner, at least according to the way Roy reacted.
The interesting part is that if he just said, oops I goofed
and took them down it would have been over. But he didn't and
THAT is the key to the way Roy and other Linux advocates
think. It's a double standard and pure hypocrisy.
Same accusations, demonstrating a bonafide hatred toward those
who advocate. Attacking the messenger instead of the message.
Inferring mental health problems and restating a 2 year old issue
that is a non-issue, because it has nothing to do with COLA's
charter. Calling the failed argument a double standard and
hypocrisy, because it does not meet flatfish's definition of what
he/she thinks the charter ought to be, not what it states.
--
HPT
|
|