Virus on page?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:09:12 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 23:04:48 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 00:06:27 -0000, David in Devon wrote:

On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:39:41 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


snip

Also big difference when it is a *vector* PDF. And editing text is
more
difficult. Yes you *can* take a screenshot. There are those who
always
steal; but editing my artwork without written consent would
violate the
copyright my clients agree to with the project.

Capitalist ****.


Do you get paid for the work you do? I'm an artist, and deserve to
get
paid for my work...and we don't even get royalties like musicians and
actors...

You're as bad as them, you expect to get paid more than once for one
piece of work.

How the hell you you come to that conclusion?

Bricklayer builds one house, gets paid once. He wants more money, he
does more work.

Musician records one song, gets paid millions of times over 30
years.Sheer laziness.


Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

Are you referring to the money to be made from limited edition prints
from the original work?

Paint once, get paid once, otherwise it's cheating.

Which is how it works. Where's the problem?

People who think they can sell 1,000,000 copies of something after only making it once.

That's got nothing to do with paintings, which you specifically mention.

Really, so why did Jonathan say "my copyright that prevents modification of my artwork"?

How would you pay mass media creators, then? For things like software,
games, music and films. Or do you believe they don't deserve a living?

A musician can get paid every time they perform, at a concert for example.

Being paid for something which already exists is illogical, whether there's another way or not.

--
"He who laughs last thinks slowest"

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:04:51 +0000, David in Devon
wrote:

On 25/03/2019 15:18, Shadow *LIED* *AGAIN*

"only" made *ONE* copy and saved it in his Dropbox account.

You can only get 6 months in jail for that. Stealing
copyrighted material without intent to distribute.

Post corrected to reflect the truth.

OTOH, if you posted a PUBLIC link to the *STOLEN* picture,
that qualifies for 10 years in jail (distributing stolen copyrighted
material):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d67fm4589...rvard.jpg?dl=0

(the link is safe now, the DMCA took it down)

Do you know who posted the link ? Or who the dropbox account
belongs to ? Have you done what a *good guy* would do, and reported
him to the police ? It would be your first "catch" in 15 years of
STALKING.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190318192230/https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php

Waste of time trying to explain what "copyright" is to
sociopaths, IMHO.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 24/03/2019 15:53, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 10:27:49 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 16:55:01 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 20/03/2019 18:58, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:50:23 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 08:45:32 -0000, Chris
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
Oh, Youtube changed to HTML5 4 years ago :-)
Surprising as I didn't think all browsers took up HTML5 for
quite a
while.

So how come a big company like Adobe made such a piece of crap,
and
didn't fix it?

They didn't make it, they bought it. I guess in the end it was too
hard to
maintain and required a specific install for every os. Just like
java which
is all also dying. HTML 5 is os agnostic by default. IOS not
supporting it
was the killer blow.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash

Who uses IOS?Â* I doubt the percentage is very high.Â* Isn't that just
small Apple devices?

Lots of people. At it's height about 60% of the market.

Now it's 23% of mobiles and 75%'of tablets
http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-...bile/worldwide
http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-...blet/worldwide

What market are you referring to?Â* Why are you omitting real
computers -
laptops and desktops?

If you'd read the link you'd have seen it was worldwide. As a
proportion
of all 'computers' iOS is the third most common OS in the world
http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share

I call bull****.Â* Phones are a small percentage of all computing
devices.
Â*iOS is only on those silly little things, not real computers.Â* A
telephone is to make phonecalls.Â* A computer is for computing.

You may want to believe that, but it's denying reality.

If you use a 4 inch screen with no mouse or keyboard to do what I do on
a 20 inch screen, you're a fool.

If you think all computers do the same thing you're sorely mistaken.
There are servers, mainframes, laptops, raspberry pis and, yes, tablets
and smartphones. All are computers, but not all are capable of doing the
same things.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:29:10 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:53:43 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:58:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Chris wrote:
On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:



snip

Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

How exactly does an artist get paid more than once for a painting or a
sculpture...?


That is what I am trying to understand. I said my copyright that
prevents modification and you can reasonably do that with PDF. If it
were analogous to performers and musicians I would get compensation each
time the artwork is viewed, or at least when resold.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Copyright isn't just for getting payment. You can quite easily give away
your work whilst still retaining copyright.

And the point of that is?

Does there need to be a point? Copyright is the default. All creative works
are copyrighted automatically whether declared so or not. It is then up to
the author to decide what to do with the work.

Why should they be?

Because creative works are a unique endeavour which requires skill and
talent that few can replicate. There's a good reason why people like da
vinci, picasso, shelley, mozart, prince, dickens, etc are lauded ; no-one
was like them or could do what they did. It is fair that their work is
protected.

The talentless shouldn't be able to steal that effort and pass it off as
their own.

Why not? It's just an idea, not a real thing. If I invented a motor that was twice as powerful, and designed a better vacuum cleaner, then Joe Bloggs managed to take my idea and improve it, or make his vacuum cleaners cheaper, he should get the money, not me. He's the one making the better ones, the ones the customers are buying.

Just because you make something doesn't give you the right to stop anyone
else making something similar.

Similar is usually ok. It's called being influenced.

A direct copy isn't ok. Stealing ideas is just as much a crime as stealing
a physical object. See patent and trademark law as well.

Wrong. The thing does not exist, it's just a thought.

End of.

End of what? Speak English. Were you really too lazy to write "story"?!

Your constant outrage must be tiring.

You're the one that's tiring, learn to speak proper English.

--
"Scotty, beam us aboard." "Aye, sir. Will a 2x4 do?"

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 18:06:07 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:53, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 10:27:49 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 16:55:01 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 20/03/2019 18:58, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 07:50:23 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 08:45:32 -0000, Chris
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
Oh, Youtube changed to HTML5 4 years ago :-)
Surprising as I didn't think all browsers took up HTML5 for
quite a
while.

So how come a big company like Adobe made such a piece of crap,
and
didn't fix it?

They didn't make it, they bought it. I guess in the end it was too
hard to
maintain and required a specific install for every os. Just like
java which
is all also dying. HTML 5 is os agnostic by default. IOS not
supporting it
was the killer blow.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Flash

Who uses IOS? I doubt the percentage is very high. Isn't that just
small Apple devices?

Lots of people. At it's height about 60% of the market.

Now it's 23% of mobiles and 75%'of tablets
http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-...bile/worldwide
http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-...blet/worldwide

What market are you referring to? Why are you omitting real
computers -
laptops and desktops?

If you'd read the link you'd have seen it was worldwide. As a
proportion
of all 'computers' iOS is the third most common OS in the world
http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share

I call bull****. Phones are a small percentage of all computing
devices.
iOS is only on those silly little things, not real computers. A
telephone is to make phonecalls. A computer is for computing.

You may want to believe that, but it's denying reality.

If you use a 4 inch screen with no mouse or keyboard to do what I do on
a 20 inch screen, you're a fool.

If you think all computers do the same thing you're sorely mistaken.
There are servers, mainframes, laptops, raspberry pis and, yes, tablets
and smartphones. All are computers, but not all are capable of doing the
same things.

A 4 inch screen is good for texting, anything more and you need a real computer. You just can't fit enough information on a tiny screen to use the internet. As for tapping things with your finger! Ugh! I'd rather run my fingernails down a blackboard.

--
"When there's a will, I want to be in it!"

In article , Chris
wrote:

What market are you referring to?* Why are you omitting real
computers - laptops and desktops?

If you'd read the link you'd have seen it was worldwide. As a
proportion
of all 'computers' iOS is the third most common OS in the world
http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share

I call bull****.* Phones are a small percentage of all computing devices.
*iOS is only on those silly little things, not real computers.* A
telephone is to make phonecalls.* A computer is for computing.

You may want to believe that, but it's denying reality.

If you use a 4 inch screen with no mouse or keyboard to do what I do on
a 20 inch screen, you're a fool.

If you think all computers do the same thing you're sorely mistaken.
There are servers, mainframes, laptops, raspberry pis and, yes, tablets
and smartphones. All are computers, but not all are capable of doing the
same things.

and some are better than others for a given task.
no device is best at everything.

In article , Commander Kinsey
wrote:

I call bull****. Phones are a small percentage of all computing
devices.
iOS is only on those silly little things, not real computers. A
telephone is to make phonecalls. A computer is for computing.

You may want to believe that, but it's denying reality.

If you use a 4 inch screen with no mouse or keyboard to do what I do on
a 20 inch screen, you're a fool.

If you think all computers do the same thing you're sorely mistaken.
There are servers, mainframes, laptops, raspberry pis and, yes, tablets
and smartphones. All are computers, but not all are capable of doing the
same things.

A 4 inch screen is good for texting, anything more and you need a real
computer. You just can't fit enough information on a tiny screen to use the
internet.

nonsense. 2 billion devices actively in use say otherwise.

As for tapping things with your finger! Ugh! I'd rather run my fingernails
down a blackboard.

then go do that.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:09:12 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 23:04:48 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 00:06:27 -0000, David in Devon wrote:

On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:39:41 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


snip

Also big difference when it is a *vector* PDF. And editing text is
more
difficult. Yes you *can* take a screenshot. There are those who
always
steal; but editing my artwork without written consent would
violate the
copyright my clients agree to with the project.

Capitalist ****.


Do you get paid for the work you do? I'm an artist, and deserve to
get
paid for my work...and we don't even get royalties like musicians and
actors...

You're as bad as them, you expect to get paid more than once for one
piece of work.

How the hell you you come to that conclusion?

Bricklayer builds one house, gets paid once. He wants more money, he
does more work.

Musician records one song, gets paid millions of times over 30
years.Sheer laziness.


Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

Are you referring to the money to be made from limited edition prints
from the original work?

Paint once, get paid once, otherwise it's cheating.

Which is how it works. Where's the problem?

People who think they can sell 1,000,000 copies of something after only making it once.

That's got nothing to do with paintings, which you specifically mention.

Really, so why did Jonathan say "my copyright that prevents modification of my artwork"?

How would you pay mass media creators, then? For things like software,
games, music and films. Or do you believe they don't deserve a living?

A musician can get paid every time they perform, at a concert for example.

That's for a performance, but what about the songs they've written and
recorded? How should they be paid for people getting to hear that?

Being paid for something which already exists is illogical, whether
there's another way or not.

What does that even mean? What already exists?

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 21:50:45 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:09:12 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 23:04:48 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 00:06:27 -0000, David in Devon wrote:

On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:39:41 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


snip

Also big difference when it is a *vector* PDF. And editing text is
more
difficult. Yes you *can* take a screenshot. There are those who
always
steal; but editing my artwork without written consent would
violate the
copyright my clients agree to with the project.

Capitalist ****.


Do you get paid for the work you do? I'm an artist, and deserve to
get
paid for my work...and we don't even get royalties like musicians and
actors...

You're as bad as them, you expect to get paid more than once for one
piece of work.

How the hell you you come to that conclusion?

Bricklayer builds one house, gets paid once. He wants more money, he
does more work.

Musician records one song, gets paid millions of times over 30
years.Sheer laziness.


Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

Are you referring to the money to be made from limited edition prints
from the original work?

Paint once, get paid once, otherwise it's cheating.

Which is how it works. Where's the problem?

People who think they can sell 1,000,000 copies of something after only making it once.

That's got nothing to do with paintings, which you specifically mention.

Really, so why did Jonathan say "my copyright that prevents modification of my artwork"?

How would you pay mass media creators, then? For things like software,
games, music and films. Or do you believe they don't deserve a living?

A musician can get paid every time they perform, at a concert for example.

That's for a performance, but what about the songs they've written and
recorded? How should they be paid for people getting to hear that?

The question is why should they.

Being paid for something which already exists is illogical, whether
there's another way or not.

What does that even mean? What already exists?

If I record a song, I shouldn't expect to get paid again when someone else buys it. I haven't created it again, I already did that. If a bricklayer builds a house, he doesn't get commission every time the house changes hands, or someone builds an identical house.

--
A penny saved is ridiculous.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:29:10 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:53:43 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:58:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Chris wrote:
On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:



snip

Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

How exactly does an artist get paid more than once for a painting or a
sculpture...?


That is what I am trying to understand. I said my copyright that
prevents modification and you can reasonably do that with PDF. If it
were analogous to performers and musicians I would get compensation each
time the artwork is viewed, or at least when resold.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Copyright isn't just for getting payment. You can quite easily give away
your work whilst still retaining copyright.

And the point of that is?

Does there need to be a point? Copyright is the default. All creative works
are copyrighted automatically whether declared so or not. It is then up to
the author to decide what to do with the work.

Why should they be?

Because creative works are a unique endeavour which requires skill and
talent that few can replicate. There's a good reason why people like da
vinci, picasso, shelley, mozart, prince, dickens, etc are lauded ; no-one
was like them or could do what they did. It is fair that their work is
protected.

The talentless shouldn't be able to steal that effort and pass it off as
their own.

Why not? It's just an idea, not a real thing.

It's not just an idea; a work of art is a real object. A song is a real
thing. That's why it is copyrighted.

If I invented a motor that was twice as powerful

It's not a creative work so isn't protected by copyright.

End of.

End of what? Speak English. Were you really too lazy to write "story"?!

Your constant outrage must be tiring.

You're the one that's tiring, learn to speak proper English.

Vernacular is proper English. And by the way I'm not speaking, I'm writing.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 21:50:45 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:09:12 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 23:04:48 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 00:06:27 -0000, David in Devon wrote:

On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:39:41 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


snip

Also big difference when it is a *vector* PDF. And editing text is
more
difficult. Yes you *can* take a screenshot. There are those who
always
steal; but editing my artwork without written consent would
violate the
copyright my clients agree to with the project.

Capitalist ****.


Do you get paid for the work you do? I'm an artist, and deserve to
get
paid for my work...and we don't even get royalties like musicians and
actors...

You're as bad as them, you expect to get paid more than once for one
piece of work.

How the hell you you come to that conclusion?

Bricklayer builds one house, gets paid once. He wants more money, he
does more work.

Musician records one song, gets paid millions of times over 30
years.Sheer laziness.


Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

Are you referring to the money to be made from limited edition prints
from the original work?

Paint once, get paid once, otherwise it's cheating.

Which is how it works. Where's the problem?

People who think they can sell 1,000,000 copies of something after only making it once.

That's got nothing to do with paintings, which you specifically mention.

Really, so why did Jonathan say "my copyright that prevents modification of my artwork"?

How would you pay mass media creators, then? For things like software,
games, music and films. Or do you believe they don't deserve a living?

A musician can get paid every time they perform, at a concert for example.

That's for a performance, but what about the songs they've written and
recorded? How should they be paid for people getting to hear that?

The question is why should they.

They've made a product using their skills and deserve to be recompensed for
it. You can't expect people to work for free. Or do you?


Being paid for something which already exists is illogical, whether
there's another way or not.

What does that even mean? What already exists?

If I record a song, I shouldn't expect to get paid again when someone else buys it.

What's a fair price for a song, then? And who'd pay? Consider that a song
can take weeks to write.

I haven't created it again, I already did that.

Using that logic you should only pay for the first brick and the rest
should be free.

If a bricklayer builds a house, he doesn't get commission every time the
house changes hands, or someone builds an identical house.

A bricklayer is a labourer not an artist. They're simply a pair of hands
and are just following the plan the architect created. The architect would
expect to be paid again, however, if someone else wanted the same house or,
if someone copied the design, they'd be infringing the copyright.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:24:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:29:10 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:53:43 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 18:58:51 -0000, Chris wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:49, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 11:59:14 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Chris wrote:
On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:



snip

Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

How exactly does an artist get paid more than once for a painting or a
sculpture...?


That is what I am trying to understand. I said my copyright that
prevents modification and you can reasonably do that with PDF. If it
were analogous to performers and musicians I would get compensation each
time the artwork is viewed, or at least when resold.

If you don't, why are you copyrighting it?

Copyright isn't just for getting payment. You can quite easily give away
your work whilst still retaining copyright.

And the point of that is?

Does there need to be a point? Copyright is the default. All creative works
are copyrighted automatically whether declared so or not. It is then up to
the author to decide what to do with the work.

Why should they be?

Because creative works are a unique endeavour which requires skill and
talent that few can replicate. There's a good reason why people like da
vinci, picasso, shelley, mozart, prince, dickens, etc are lauded ; no-one
was like them or could do what they did. It is fair that their work is
protected.

The talentless shouldn't be able to steal that effort and pass it off as
their own.

Why not? It's just an idea, not a real thing.

It's not just an idea; a work of art is a real object. A song is a real
thing. That's why it is copyrighted.

No, it's just data on a CD. It doesn't actually exist. Get a real job like building a house.

If I invented a motor that was twice as powerful

It's not a creative work so isn't protected by copyright.

Don't interrupt with no point whatsoever.

End of.

End of what? Speak English. Were you really too lazy to write "story"?!

Your constant outrage must be tiring.

You're the one that's tiring, learn to speak proper English.

Vernacular is proper English.

Yeah right. Try the **** Glaswegians come out with.

And by the way I'm not speaking, I'm writing.

Irrelevant.

--
355/113 - Not the famous number Pi, but a great simulation!

On 25/03/2019 16:30, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 16:04:51 +0000, David in Devon
wrote:

On 25/03/2019 15:18, Shadow *LIED* *AGAIN*

"only" made *ONE* copy and saved it in his Dropbox account.

You can only get 6 months in jail for that. Stealing
copyrighted material without intent to distribute.

Post corrected to reflect the truth.

OTOH, if you posted a PUBLIC link to the *STOLEN* picture,
that qualifies for 10 years in jail (distributing stolen copyrighted
material):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4d67fm4589...%20Harvard.jpg

(the link is safe now, the DMCA took it down)

Is this what you are looking for?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g781n8y3ns...mT5ER9_gVd15-I

So, just where *IS* the image of a Harvard aircraft which was stolen
from the Tekrider website? It's not there now ..

Neither is it visible of any of the pages held by www.archive.org

It's simply vanished! :-D

--
David B.
Devon, UK

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:53:19 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 21:50:45 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:09:12 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 23:04:48 -0000, Chris wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 00:06:27 -0000, David in Devon wrote:

On 23/03/2019 23:59, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 23:42:52 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 20:19:27 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 19:38:35 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 04:39:41 -0000, Jonathan N. Little
wrote:


snip

Also big difference when it is a *vector* PDF. And editing text is
more
difficult. Yes you *can* take a screenshot. There are those who
always
steal; but editing my artwork without written consent would
violate the
copyright my clients agree to with the project.

Capitalist ****.


Do you get paid for the work you do? I'm an artist, and deserve to
get
paid for my work...and we don't even get royalties like musicians and
actors...

You're as bad as them, you expect to get paid more than once for one
piece of work.

How the hell you you come to that conclusion?

Bricklayer builds one house, gets paid once. He wants more money, he
does more work.

Musician records one song, gets paid millions of times over 30
years.Sheer laziness.


Didn't explain how it apply to me and my copyright that prevents
modification of my artwork.

Because you made the artwork once yet want paid more than once. Is it
that hard for you to understand?

Are you referring to the money to be made from limited edition prints
from the original work?

Paint once, get paid once, otherwise it's cheating.

Which is how it works. Where's the problem?

People who think they can sell 1,000,000 copies of something after only making it once.

That's got nothing to do with paintings, which you specifically mention.

Really, so why did Jonathan say "my copyright that prevents modification of my artwork"?

How would you pay mass media creators, then? For things like software,
games, music and films. Or do you believe they don't deserve a living?

A musician can get paid every time they perform, at a concert for example.

That's for a performance, but what about the songs they've written and
recorded? How should they be paid for people getting to hear that?

The question is why should they.

They've made a product using their skills and deserve to be recompensed for
it. You can't expect people to work for free. Or do you?

It's not real work. Try using real effort and go and do something using your hands instead of sitting on your arse saying you want millions for a thought.

Being paid for something which already exists is illogical, whether
there's another way or not.

What does that even mean? What already exists?

If I record a song, I shouldn't expect to get paid again when someone else buys it.

What's a fair price for a song, then? And who'd pay? Consider that a song
can take weeks to write.

It's just an idea, not hard labour.

I haven't created it again, I already did that.

Using that logic you should only pay for the first brick and the rest
should be free.

WTF? It takes physical effort to lay the next brick. You don't just sit back and let your producer copy the CD then expect money for his effort.

If a bricklayer builds a house, he doesn't get commission every time the
house changes hands, or someone builds an identical house.

A bricklayer is a labourer not an artist. They're simply a pair of hands
and are just following the plan the architect created. The architect would
expect to be paid again, however, if someone else wanted the same house or,
if someone copied the design, they'd be infringing the copyright.

Then the architect is a fraud just like you. He should design each and every house individually. Building another one the same involves no effort on his part.

--
"Happiness is a belt-fed weapon"

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 23:34:41 +0000, David in Devon
wrote:

So, just where *IS* the image of a Harvard aircraft which was stolen
from the Tekrider website? It's not there now ..

Why are you suddenly emboldened to admit that you stole a copyrighted
photo? It didn't suddenly become legal. Have you been drinking today?
Stupid question, that.

Neither is it visible of any of the pages held by www.archive.org

It's simply vanished! :-D

You have the mind of a 1 year old toddler. When you stick your hand in
your pocket, has your hand disappeared? When you poke your head around
the corner and then pull back, has your head disappeared? No, to both.
Adults know this, toddlers will learn it, and drunks used to know it but
have forgotten.


--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he

https://web.archive.org/web/20190221143021/https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php