You're equating something so trivial as using public domain images as avatars, to STEALING someone's paid custom style. Plus, he claimed it was his own work initially, or, allowed people to believe that. Ripping styles does not equal avatar use! That is called "silly."I think you overreact.
Any of you, who used an avatar which was an image you found on the internet, committed a copyright infringement. Unless you all created your avatars yourself, or the pictures are taken by your camera (or family etc.), all of you were thieves in the past or are right now.
Or do you have the permission of the owners to use those images as avatars? You are using something which you don't own. Just like JoyFreak did.
What about that? I don't see any topics about that. I don't see anyone pointing the finger towards themselves.
That is called hypocrisy.
And one a Turkish proverb:He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
The person who is giving me lectures in my religion - if only he would be a Muslim himself at least...
Actually, it isn't. That particular image IS public domain. But let's not quibble.Thus you using that image as avatar is theft
And in this way we can rationalize.... Anything!I do absolutely see the irony and the hypocrisy in a lot of comments here. It's why I addressed the issue in my own posts.
If I were to speak on that - I'd be called all sorts of ridiculous. So ... Interesting comments and points of contention sbjsbj
I mean ... A theft is a theft is a theft. Is as simple a concept that you can get. But a lot of people who also would say a sin is a sin is a sin would chastise others for their apparent sins - while not at all addressing their own. So I can appreciate (perhaps more than I should) the thought process you've shared here today LOL
I'm genuinely interested, how is this possible? If that image is from the movie, and the movie is not in the public domain, how is that public domain? Can I see the source of it?Actually, it isn't. That particular image IS public domain. But let's not quibble.
Again, you are no judge. What trivial is and what not, you are not in a position to decide on those things. So what for you looks like trivial, might be not as trivial for the copyright holder. And if you just use that excuse, well the next guy can think ripping off a theme is trivial, because he didn't steal a car or something. And so on.The fact that you are making an equivalency between trivial usage of images PD or not as avatars on message boards and intentionally stealing paid styles with malicious intent pretty much answers the thread title question.
Again, strawman nr.2. Never said such a thing.Because to boil down your argument in much less verbose and much more succinct language, all theft is okay because "mom, the other kids do it tooooo."
Nah, another strawman. The guy already got 2 threads filled on XF getting bullied and now this. I am not saying look away, it is just there is a line where you cross it and it becomes into bullying and harassing people. You are not allowed to do that. The worst thing him stealing that theme is, that financially he gains sth. from it or the owner loses money.And we all should just simply look the other way, because heck, we've ALL stolen something, sometime.
Again, well, in the day of internet and PCs and softwares, it is a philosophical question if copying bits and bytes can be called theft.When did theft become okay and even acceptable? Because "mom, the other kids do it toooo."
Thx, well, copyright in the age of internet is a very complex topic. I hold a controversial opinion about it, I am actually pro piracy for example but this thing is a philosophical stance than anything and it has to be discussed and talked very precisely to not lose any details on this matter.I like your thought process here, sbjsbj
Perhaps, the best way to look at it is how much harm it causes to the producer of the content?
If a large number of people follow the mindset of not paying for their content, then the designer might find it harder to make a living, but at the same time, if someone wasn't going to pay for it either way, then no money is lost.
You would also have to consider that merely seeing someone get away with a crime can somewhat incentivize others to commit the same crime, normalizing it in a way, and that can have an indirect effect.
It's not. No such image ever appeared in the movie. It's an artists conception of what might have been seen immediately after the car wreck.If that image is from the movie
The internet community is the judge, and most people in the community agree avatar use is trivial, ripping a style while claiming you made it, is not. Add to that, the actror in question after being caught, claimed it had permission before using it. Which, it didn't.What trivial is and what not, you are not in a position to decide on those things
Sure you were. You even had a reply agreeing.AND I was not making an equivalency.
Nobody's been "bullied" then or now. In fact, I have never mentioned the person in question. Others have, so there's an assumption. Personally I expected the mentions of the name to be removed from the thread.The guy already got 2 threads filled on XF getting bullied and now this
So did the others, removed from public view. But not here.I didn't see the same backlash for 2 famous pedophile on XF either. The topic just got closed on XF.
VERY slightly. Almost like painting the stolen car a different color.he modified it and put it to use.
Sticking to the facts isn't exaggerating. It's exaggerating when the perp claims it had prior permission. It's exaggerating when the perp allows others to believe it's his original work. It's exaggerating to claim that trivial common use of avatars is comparable to stealing someone's paid custom style.All in all, just don't exaggerate it that much.
So... In your world using nulled software isn't theft.Stealing is, when you take something away from someone without his permission and that thing is not there anymore.
Obviously. Therefore not at all objective on theft.I am actually pro piracy
Even though there was no "bullying," the perp could have made it all go away with one post, admitting what he did and apologizing. He could have owned it and moved on. Instead what did he do? Continued to deny it and later even claimed he had permission before ripping the style. And reporting posts here, claiming he was being libeled and slandered. C'mon now.You or anyone bullying that guy till death gets into the psyche of the person and in this particular case, it is enough at one point.
No offense, but since when do rational people think that a majority of some vague "internet community" gets to decide what is right and wrong? Ultimately the only real "judge" anyone should care about is the law. Most people aren't going to care whether or not some other anonymous or unknown persons on the internet think they're bad people, but they will care if and when the law comes after them. While I think it's reasonable that we judge some things to be worse offenses than others, sbjsbj's points are also good ones. There are people out there who think that "appropriating" a copyrighted image for an avatar or meme is just as bad as you think it is to swipe someone's style. Believe me, I've encountered more than one such person online! Like most things in life, it's all relative. What you think is a big deal isn't going to be a big deal to some others, and what you think is not a big deal will be to some others.The internet community is the judge, and most people in the community agree avatar use is trivial, ripping a style while claiming you made it, is not. Add to that, the actror in question after being caught, claimed it had permission before using it. Which, it didn't.
It isn't a philosophical question. Taking or copying someone's work without payment or permission is theft.Again, well, in the day of internet and PCs and softwares, it is a philosophical question if copying bits and bytes can be called theft.
I find it highly unethical to create a piece of code or art which you can perpetually sell forever and ever. I find it highly unbalanced compared to work which you can't duplicate. But this is for another discussion, don't want to go into that now.
It isn't. It is copyright infringement though.So... In your world using nulled software isn't theft.
Look, my problem here is that at one point we need to move on. Chewing the same thing over and over is just bullying at one point. I am not saying the person we talk about acted perfectly, he did mistakes, but again, move on please.Even though there was no "bullying," the perp could have made it all go away with one post, admitting what he did and apologizing. He could have owned it and moved on. Instead what did he do? Continued to deny it and later even claimed he had permission before ripping the style. And reporting posts here, claiming he was being libeled and slandered. C'mon now.
It is a philosophical question. It is not theft, however, it is copyright infringement.It isn't a philosophical question. Taking or copying someone's work without payment or permission is theft.
Yep, all do behave unethically, that is what I believe. But there is a distinction to make here.Creating code or art which one can sell over and over isn't unethical -- unless you believe that book publishers, music publishers, and every company that manufactures products are behaving unethically. One would have to have a very "creative" definition of the term to accept that.