Frogboy Frogboy

Take that file-swappers!

▼

Take that file-swappers!

A big blow to parasitic companies..

http://news.com.com/Supreme+Court+rules+against+file+swapping/2100-1030_3-5764135.html?tag=nl
from WinCustomize Forums

Today was a big win for those of us who value intellectual property.  Companies like Grokster and Kazaa and others who profit off of enabling people to conveniently steal software, music, videos, etc. are now on notice thanks to today's Supreme Court ruling on the issue.

The Supreme court found that peer-to-peer providers are indeed liable for how users make use of their network.  I for one am pretty pleased with this outcome on a number of levels.

A few years ago, Napster took the world by storm. Its developer was hailed as a visionary and the company became a household name.  But many developers, including us, were pretty unhappy with the whole thing. Automated piracy is not revolutionary or innovative.  Many companies (including Stardock) had thought of such file sharing concepts in the past but did not invest in them because it would be difficult to keep people from pirating.  But companies and individuals with fewer scruples not only went forward with such ideas but profited greatly from them and won both fame and fortune.

These companies exist, IMO, purely to profit from people pirating other people's work.  Perhaps these guys will find real jobs now and earn money honestly.

The Supreme Court wrote:

"There is no evidence that either company (Grokster or StreamCast) made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users' downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted files," Souter wrote. "Each company showed itself to be aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement, the market comprising former Napster users."

While the court will, in future cases, need to clarify some of the elements of its ruling, I think this is a big win for people who create intellectual property.  I don't have a huge angst about piracy per se, but I have a lot of angst about companies in the business of profiting from it.

78,775 views 215 replies
Reply #76 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Not exactly, and again this is the misconception part of it all. The developers that created these software that we like so much and that enables each person to 'decorate' their desktop as they wish, did so with the purpose that each individual would create their own themes and adorn their own desktop. They were not created to 'force' anyone to share their work. Each individual uploads his/her work willingly and by choice, and if they want to make a profit out of it, then that will also be their choice and everyone needs to respect that.
You don’t have to purchase anything if you don’t want to, but don’t say it's wrong to profit out of your own work and assume/expect to get things for free.



Well many of these companies are assholes in my opinion. Kazaa for example is one of the worst companies out there. I like the part where they shut down kazaa lite because of IP problems. Lots of times companies rely on forcing people to share because they only get revenue from advertisements, and putting spyware on your computer. This law should probably focus more on people who make profit from file sharign, rather than those that promote it.
Reply #77 from WinCustomize Forums Top
au contraire S3vyn i beg to differ. what 'we are talking about here' is control of information. who will control that information & how it will be controlled. 'what america' and western democracy stand for is the right to exploit a resource whether that emerges from original thinking or as a result of simple political expediency.

the moral issues revolving around copyright & ownership are more complex than you seem to suggest. Brazil at this time threatening to break patents on anti-aids drugs in order to maintain their health program being a case in point. capitalism cannot simply be framed in terms of benign meritocracy. it's very nature i would argue is inherently exploitative and one in which moderation is a contradiction in terms.



I Believe that is the biggest problem. People fail to accept that this is a complex moral issue (let a lone an ethical one) and label it wrong or right. Im not going to say that the concept of IP is wrong or right, Im saying that there is another side, and it is valid.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #78 from WinCustomize Forums Top
...They were not created to 'force' anyone to share their work. Each individual uploads his/her work willingly and by choice, and if they want to make a profit out of it, then that will also be their choice and everyone needs to respect that.
You don’t have to purchase anything if you don’t want to, but don’t say it's wrong to profit out of your own work and assume/expect to get things for free.


since you insist on quoting my discourse apocalypse67 i must assume you are referring to my argument(s) specifically. ofcourse you may simply be generalizing.
firstly, i have not mentioned anything about 'forcing anyone to share their work'. nor do i contest the right or say that it is wrong for an author to profit from their own work. indeed the wonderful thing about consumer society is we all have the freedom to choose afterall.

on a purely subjective note however i do feel that a large part of what goes into making a community in the first place can largely be attributed to a goodwill predicated upon a give and take that is not wholly underpinned by a commercial ethic. ofcourse i could be wrong.
Reply #79 from WinCustomize Forums Top
since you insist on quoting my discourse apocalypse67 i must assume you are referring to my argument(s) specifically. ofcourse you may simply be generalizing.
firstly, i have not mentioned anything about 'forcing anyone to share their work'. nor do i contest the right or say that it is wrong for an author to profit from their own work. indeed the wonderful thing about consumer society is we all have the freedom to choose afterall.

on a purely subjective note however i do feel that a large part of what goes into making a community in the first place can largely be attributed to a goodwill predicated upon a give and take that is not wholly underpinned by a commercial ethic. ofcourse i could be wrong.


Just watch out people dont compare you to al capone with such blasphemous words
I like it how people are evil these days because they dont think everything is based off money.
Reply #80 from WinCustomize Forums Top
This discussion waxes pointless and I won't be returning. The Court made the right decision for all of those of us who have their names attached to a software patent and/or copyright. To expect the Supreme Court to cater to people who want something for nothing or who only speak in theories and vague antonyms is at best a ludicrous and futile excercise. I expect, as should you, that the Supreme Court will continue to rule in favor of those who work within the existing law structure as opposed to ruling in favor of those who would prefer to have something for nothing.

There are people and teams who distribute their work freely. There is an alternative to almost every industry leading software suite. Use those alternatives instead of the industry leader unless you are ready to pay the industry leader's license fees. Otherwise you're breaking a law that you know exists, this makes you a willing criminal.
Reply #81 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I mean some people will have to face facts. Object dock which is being sold by stardock is an immense violation of the intellectual property of Apple's OSX Bar. If that was patented I wouldnt have my object dock. That is just freaking nuts.


I think you are a bit off topic. ObjectDock, while it may be similar to Apple's interface, is NOT the same. It is different both in the appearance and the underlying code. If one or both were the same I am sure that Apple's lawyers would be talking to Brad. What this thread started with was a court decision about the "sharing" of licensed software/music with no compensation to the license holders, and the companies that were blatantly and knowingly supporting and enabling it.

All of your ranting about Intellectual Property is a bit over the top.

And my point about other countries was that because something is common practice or even LAW somewhere does not mean that it is good, or workable, or desirable. After all, 150 years ago slavery was the law in the US. And I'm quite sure we could find a great many laws in many different countries that do not make sense or promote the people's welfare. (I do not exclude the United States by any means, though it is where I live. Some of the worst offenses to my spirit of what works for the planet are being perpetrated by us.)
Reply #82 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Again, no one has really addressed the "muscle car" analogy. If companies that produce DVD copying software or file sharing software are guilty of producing something they KNOW will be used illegally then so are the car companies that produce vehicles that can do 150 MPH and market them on their ability to do so.

Odd thing was no one was that upset when VCRs were used to copy television shows or tape recorders were used to copy music off the radio. Why? Simply because the copies were of inferior quality. Apparently these companies don't mind stealing if the quality isn't up to snuff. But let the reproduction be as good as the original? Then the crying begins.

And, on the library side, there's nothing to stop me from bringing books home, scanning them into my computer and makeing as many copies as I like. Therefor, following the ruling's logic, the library is guilty of providing the intellectual material to me for my nefarious deeds.

Again, the ruling is plain stupid.
Reply #83 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I think you are a bit off topic. ObjectDock, while it may be similar to Apple's interface, is NOT the same. It is different both in the appearance and the underlying code. If one or both were the same I am sure that Apple's lawyers would be talking to Brad. What this thread started with was a court decision about the "sharing" of licensed software/music with no compensation to the license holders, and the companies that were blatantly and knowingly supporting and enabling it.

All of your ranting about Intellectual Property is a bit over the top.

And my point about other countries was that because something is common practice or even LAW somewhere does not mean that it is good, or workable, or desirable. After all, 150 years ago slavery was the law in the US. And I'm quite sure we could find a great many laws in many different countries that do not make sense or promote the people's welfare. (I do not exclude the United States by any means, though it is where I live. Some of the worst offenses to my spirit of what works for the planet are being perpetrated by us.)


lmao you do NOT understand the concept of Intellectual Property. Under the IP guidelines you can EASILY get sued for using that interface. The code doesnt have to be similar, and laws do apply to reverse engineering certain currently exsisting applications.The open source community isnt just bitchin about it beecause they like to.

You dont even understand what happens as a result of Intellectual Property at all so dont say my ranting is over the top.
Reply #84 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Jafo is right. Art has never been universally free. Neither have books been free, nor concerts. Professionals need to make a living - and the public defines whats professional art by buying it. Theft used to be quite difficult. But with digital content, theft is all of a sudden easy. First it was floppy discs, later BBSes, now the Internet. Just because a lot of people do it it's all of a sudden ethical.

As mentioned earlier, there are limits, and that always has been the case. Sometimes common interests overrule monetary concerns. Most frequently this happens with needed prescription drugs as far as I know. However, I'd find it difficult to claim that music, movies and software ought to be free. There are enough people who provide software for free. There's enough artists who provide music for free, and even movies for free. There's NO need to just steal from artists who'd rather charge for their work.

I'd REALLY like to go to these "IP ought to be free" people, make them work for free and just claim that they aren't entitled to pay because the product of their work should be free.
Reply #85 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I'd REALLY like to go to these "IP ought to be free" people, make them work for free and just claim that they aren't entitled to pay because the product of their work should be free.


Ok I think its official that people really to research some things or shut up. How do you think linux was made? People did work for free and shared it with others. So what your thinking you would want to make us do is what is already being done. Has already been done....And its being done faster than what.

And there are many people who stand on the corner and just spit a straight 16 on the street, not expecting any money, and knowing that what they are saying are useful. And just to let you know, there is a HELLUVA lot more songs being shared which are rare, or uncommercialized, and unattainable through stores then there are commercialized music.

The crap that people are claiming IP IP IP IP fail to realize that every thing isnt commercialized and everything doesnt have to be commercialized.... and everything doesnt have to be commercialized.

But wombat I would suggest you think before you say such silly things. google up fsf bsd and gnu and learn a thing or 2.
Reply #86 from WinCustomize Forums Top

This discussion waxes pointless and I won't be returning. The Court made the right decision for all of those of us who have their names attached to a software patent and/or copyright. To expect the Supreme Court to cater to people who want something for nothing or who only speak in theories and vague antonyms is at best a ludicrous and futile excercise. I expect, as should you, that the Supreme Court will continue to rule in favor of those who work within the existing law structure as opposed to ruling in favor of those who would prefer to have something for nothing.

There are people and teams who distribute their work freely. There is an alternative to almost every industry leading software suite. Use those alternatives instead of the industry leader unless you are ready to pay the industry leader's license fees. Otherwise you're breaking a law that you know exists, this makes you a willing criminal.

Nicely put....

***************

So much of this 'argument' is claimed to be about 'us and them'....them being the Law makers/fat-cats/establishment....and 'us' being the Internet cognicenti who purport to know what property law is...and invented ethics on some lazy Sunday Arvo.

Every peanut who is deemed 'mature' enough to vote in whatever their country's political/social machine is have had a say in how such rulings 'might' turn out.

There is an obligation for each individual wishing to be a part of the society in which they find themselves to be pro-active and assist in determining 'social policy'.  Sure, a lot of it has been passed down through the ages....and in some countries that's a damn sight more than a few hundred years...but each individual has equal rights [the Democratic model],,. so, surprisingly Joe-Knuckle-dragger's opinion on what is right or wrong is as equally 'valid' as that of some old fart called Socrates, et al.

What tends to happen is through this democratic [or similar] process your community empowers certain individuals to make determinations ON YOUR BEHALF regarding Law/Policy/[even morality] so you can sit and watch the footy and pick your nose in peace...

Once that 'determination' is made it 'just' might be at odds with your personal opinion...but unfortunately for you it simply means that a 'majority' believe you to be less than right.

I believe that 'if' you are an 'expert' driver [ie...have a Super Licence...[F1]] you should be able to drive as fast as you like....as you have shown exemplary driving skill.  Society however makes its rules...in this case...'speed limits' to cater for the median/mean.  At 100kph [in Oz] there are many people who are still death on 4 wheels...but...the 'Law-makers' [us] decided that 100 was the determinator between 'legal' and 'illegal'.

Exceeding 100 is therefore illegal....and since its transgression is seen to allegedly be an endangerment to other individuals it is also irresponsible and essentially immoral...even 'unethical' can be argued.

Bottom line....if YOUR society determines that Intellectual Property is protected by your country's property laws just like any other 'possession'...then the 'taking' of it without permission of its declared owner is THEFT.

You can debate whether your ideal society would do it that way...or not...and if it's against YOUR personal 'morals' then your only recourse is to depart and find a country/community where your views are agreed with, because in this society you have been declared 'out of step'.

Or....you strive through political advancement to attain a position where you can impress your thinking on others at their [alleged] expense....[though that's usually called 'dictatorship'].

Sad [for you], but true...

Reply #87 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Ok lets get down to the basics, do the artists deserve something for thier work? Yes (i am lumping programmers and photographers under the same title for ease)

Will this rulling really change anything? No, the internet is not static, by the time laws are made to battle piracy its allready out of date due to new tools and programs. When Sony won against Hollywood in the battle of the VCR Hollywood responded by marketing vhs movies. Now had the courst gone against the record label we may have seen them forced to rethink buisiness strategies to better use the internet for example apples itunes. The problem we have here though is these sites require a credit card, how many pre teens do you know with credit cards?

I may be out to lunch here BUT shutting down p2p totally is not the answer either, as i said before there are many legitimate uses for this technology, such as new indipendant bands getting their music some play, or a small software company putting out demos on a p2p network. Bbut unfortunatly it comes down to some people abusing the system. i recently re downloaded one of those p2p clients and in big letters when the software starts it says "sharing copyrighted files is not legal" so they are trying to put the responsibility on the end user to police themselve.

Sorry for babbling but i think p2p software will not go away and that the problem of piracy hac been around since the vcr and will be around for many years to come as new and better ways of sharing information is created.

and in closing....nah i'm done
Reply #88 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Nicely put....

***************

So much of this 'argument' is claimed to be about 'us and them'....them being the Law makers/fat-cats/establishment....and 'us' being the Internet cognicenti who purport to know what property law is...and invented ethics on some lazy Sunday Arvo.

Every peanut who is deemed 'mature' enough to vote in whatever their country's political/social machine is have had a say in how such rulings 'might' turn out.

There is an obligation for each individual wishing to be a part of the society in which they find themselves to be pro-active and assist in determining 'social policy'. Sure, a lot of it has been passed down through the ages....and in some countries that's a damn sight more than a few hundred years...but each individual has equal rights [the Democratic model],,. so, surprisingly Joe-Knuckle-dragger's opinion on what is right or wrong is as equally 'valid' as that of some old fart called Socrates, et al.

What tends to happen is through this democratic [or similar] process your community empowers certain individuals to make determinations ON YOUR BEHALF regarding Law/Policy/[even morality] so you can sit and watch the footy and pick your nose in peace...

Once that 'determination' is made it 'just' might be at odds with your personal opinion...but unfortunately for you it simply means that a 'majority' believe you to be less than right.

I believe that 'if' you are an 'expert' driver [ie...have a Super Licence...[F1]] you should be able to drive as fast as you like....as you have shown exemplary driving skill. Society however makes its rules...in this case...'speed limits' to cater for the median/mean. At 100kph [in Oz] there are many people who are still death on 4 wheels...but...the 'Law-makers' [us] decided that 100 was the determinator between 'legal' and 'illegal'.

Exceeding 100 is therefore illegal....and since its transgression is seen to allegedly be an endangerment to other individuals it is also irresponsible and essentially immoral...even 'unethical' can be argued.

Bottom line....if YOUR society determines that Intellectual Property is protected by your country's property laws just like any other 'possession'...then the 'taking' of it without permission of its declared owner is THEFT.

You can debate whether your ideal society would do it that way...or not...and if it's against YOUR personal 'morals' then your only recourse is to depart and find a country/community where your views are agreed with, because in this society you have been declared 'out of step'.

Or....you strive through political advancement to attain a position where you can impress your thinking on others at their [alleged] expense....[though that's usually called 'dictatorship'].

Sad [for you], but true...



Ok this is ridiculous. That is what i said from the get go. That in the ethical community, it is accepted that file sharing is unethical because it is illegal, which is a rare case. But you guys come in with bible in hand and ears shut telling us that we are immoral and evil and one side is right, and this is the right decision and bullshit this and bullshit that.

I never once said that this was the wrong or right decision, just that its a complex one, meanwhile you guys run around talking like your some higher power.

Yes and I think every lawmaker in the world knows that a law like this is so insanely vague that it wont stand to do nothing in court. Its just there to make the RIAA waste there time while the courts think of a real solution.

I dont just say stuff for the hell of it.
Reply #89 from WinCustomize Forums Top

meanwhile you guys run around talking like your some higher power.

OK...so this News Item is posted within 'our' skinning community...reaffirming our generally-held opinion that OUR artwork [skins] remain our intellectual/physical/tangible property, and by and large, every actual skinner/contributor to this site agrees that their property might just be a wee bit more 'secure' following such rulings, no matter how much it's up the nose of the general file-sharer.

This News item is posted under the banner ...'a big win for those of us who value Intellectual Property' by the Person who pays to provide this site and all its content to those who 'might' just use file-sharing to undermine their inherent copyright....and such stance is applauded by one of the people whose job it is to [hopefully] protect the rights of this community of uploaders/artists/sharers .. so possibly yes, there's a 'holier than thou' aspect. 

In this community, like all others, rules are set in place to determine what can and cannot be done.  By enrolling/joining you are undertaking to abide by the accepted/instigated 'rules', one of which is 'thou shalt not rip' aka 'thou shalt not take what is not yours against the wishes of its owner'.

All this means that although there can be squillions of opinions and thoughts on the matter of copyright, Intellectual property, and file-sharing and all things related, there's very limited scope for deviating from the established/imposed tenets of this community.

It's not 'big brother' or 'thought police' or draconian oppression, it's just 'rules'....

Reply #90 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Vasqo I am not targeting your argument and as everyone else you are entitled to voice your opinion I was merely pointing out the difference on your example. And I was generalizing on my argument.
Communities often serve as ground breaking or platforms for individual to grow and expand in their unique fields. So just because a community (in this case the skinning community) started with individuals sharing their work freely doesn’t necessary means it's going to remain that way.

Again, no one has really addressed the "muscle car" analogy. If companies that produce DVD copying software or file sharing software are guilty of producing something they KNOW will be used illegally then so are the car companies that produce vehicles that can do 150 MPH and market them on their ability to do so.


This analogy is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. You are comparing apples to oranges.
Each company makes products for the general public to purchase and use, but it is up to each individual to take responsibilities for the use of such products and abide by the established laws. Its call Common Sense
Reply #91 from WinCustomize Forums Top

....I think the GNU is the best license ever... Its hard for me to stray away from a good argument.

Is the software you are paid to make distributed under the GNU license? Why not?

This ruling wasn't about pirates. It was about companies who profit from piracy.  It's bad enough that I, as a software developer, don't get paid when someone pirates the things I make.  But it's insult to injury that scum like Kazaa are profiting from the theft of the things I make.

Reply #92 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Those of 'us' who were alive and cognitive in the 70's will remember the ground-swell of public opinion that saw the death of the 'Muscle Car' as such...as it was formally withdrawn from sale/development.  This specifically applied to such cars [in Oz] as the Ford GTHO Phase 3 ...for the ignorant that's a 4-door 'family' sedan... with a 351 cid V8 normally aspirated car capable of 150 mph off the showroom floor...no mods needed.

Ford Australia made them specifically as Homologation Specials...the [almost] exact same animal was raced at events like Bathurst...a road-race event outside Sydney.  GM, aka Holden had their equivalent, as did Chrysler aka Valiant.  By the time Oz laws restricted road speeds to 70mph it was considered a bit OTT to have a 'family sedan' that could more than double a legal limit....it wasn't a 'sportscar' or an exotic.

Just goes to show that eventually society DOES say 'enough is enough' and things change.  Of course, since wayback when, cars have been 'beefing up' again...

Edit....

Forgot to mention the relevance....the GTHO was then the world's fastest production 4-door sedan, hence the ultimate outcry...

Reply #93 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Communities often serve as ground breaking or platforms for individual to grow and expand in their unique fields. So just because a community (in this case the skinning community) started with individuals sharing their work freely doesn’t necessary means it's going to remain that way.



gosh yes. observing the rise in commercial activity at this site - one does not even own one's words any more - one can assume that wincustomize will indeed grow in this way. the fact that there are now viable alternatives Link that themselves are equally as good is a wonderful thing, non?
Reply #94 from WinCustomize Forums Top

There are always 'alternatives'...as to how 'viable' they are/become/remain is open to conjecture.

All publicly accessible 'community' skinning sites have had to embrace a 'commercial model' in one form or another to survive, or at least in order to maintain the [demanded] level of accessibility/content....

Reply #95 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Is the software you are paid to make distributed under the GNU license? Why not?

This ruling wasn't about pirates. It was about companies who profit from piracy. It's bad enough that I, as a software developer, don't get paid when someone pirates the things I make. But it's insult to injury that scum like Kazaa are profiting from the theft of the things I make.


Hah I wish the ruling was about people who profit from piracy. they need a good slap. This ruling is about those who "support" piracy. That is a big difference

From this issue stems the concept of Intellectual Property, which we are discussing now.
OK...so this News Item is posted within 'our' skinning community...reaffirming our generally-held opinion that OUR artwork [skins] remain our intellectual/physical/tangible property, and by and large, every actual skinner/contributor to this site agrees that their property might just be a wee bit more 'secure' following such rulings, no matter how much it's up the nose of the general file-sharer.

This News item is posted under the banner ...'a big win for those of us who value Intellectual Property' by the Person who pays to provide this site and all its content to those who 'might' just use file-sharing to undermine their inherent copyright....and such stance is applauded by one of the people whose job it is to [hopefully] protect the rights of this community of uploaders/artists/sharers .. so possibly yes, there's a 'holier than thou' aspect.

In this community, like all others, rules are set in place to determine what can and cannot be done. By enrolling/joining you are undertaking to abide by the accepted/instigated 'rules', one of which is 'thou shalt not rip' aka 'thou shalt not take what is not yours against the wishes of its owner'.

All this means that although there can be squillions of opinions and thoughts on the matter of copyright, Intellectual property, and file-sharing and all things related, there's very limited scope for deviating from the established/imposed tenets of this community.

It's not 'big brother' or 'thought police' or draconian oppression, it's just 'rules'....


You mean the same community which infringes upon the Mac OS IP? Since when do you speak for the skinning community. As you can see this is a issue of debate between many people. You really do not need to bring in this attitude that we all have to think like you and agree with you.
Wait so if I dont believe in the concept in Intellectual Property then I am an outcast. Im all about customization and the like, and dont tell me otherwise.
So now the point of skinning is too make sure noone copies your work. Thats great. Here I am thinking the point of skinning to make an application or enviornment look as best to me as I possibly can. I guess when I bought the minimus skin, and used some tools to make the color more blueish so that it matches with the rest of windows, I went against the holy 'methodology of skinning'. Oh crap
You people just dont know what you are doing anymore.
Reply #96 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Don't you guys think that their will always be "illegal" file sharing programs out there? Someone will and can figure a "workaround " again....right? I'm not saying it's right but saying it will always be. That's all.
Reply #98 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Someone will and can figure a "workaround " again....right? I'm not saying it's right but saying it will always be. That's all.


This is/could be true just as there will always be thieves and killers among each community but that is not going to stop us from protecting our selves against them or for the police to stop pursuing them.
And whether an individual believes in something or not does not makes that person immune to the laws already established.
Reply #99 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I guess when I bought the minimus skin, and used some tools to make the color more blueish so that it matches with the rest of windows, I went against the holy 'methodology of skinning'. Oh crap

Oh, come on...no need to be silly.  What is 'going against' anything is the belief of 'some' that subsequently 'sharing' that recoloured skin is not a violation of copyright.

Where exactly is the Mac infringement?  Wincustomize.com strives to accept any and all requests for IP protection/respect as and when notified by their holder.....something that is ACTIVELY ignored by the majority of these 'file-sharers' which just hate to pay because they have a misguided sense of ethos.

When you interact with a community or site which actively wants to protect its members' content from unlawful duplication/distribution but hold a diametrically opposite view as to their property rights then, yes, you are an 'outcast'.

Example....

Last time a clever-dick hosted warez copies of SD software on his personal site, linked-to in his Profile here on Wincustomize.com it was a no-brainer to exclude him from this community.

Now, 'warez' is the commonly accepted term for unlawfully obtained software...which, strangely enough is what 'file-sharing' is about.  If you did not purchase the 'file' from its lawful owner then it is theft.

Now, look up the definition of 'lawful owner'.....it'll help....

Reply #100 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Oh, come on...no need to be silly. What is 'going against' anything is the belief of 'some' that subsequently 'sharing' that recoloured skin is not a violation of copyright.

Where exactly is the Mac infringement? Wincustomize.com strives to accept any and all requests for IP protection/respect as and when notified by their holder.....something that is ACTIVELY ignored by the majority of these 'file-sharers' which just hate to pay because they have a misguided sense of ethos.

When you interact with a community or site which actively wants to protect its members' content from unlawful duplication/distribution but hold a diametrically opposite view as to their property rights then, yes, you are an 'outcast'.

Example....

Last time a clever-dick hosted warez copies of SD software on his personal site, linked-to in his Profile here on Wincustomize.com it was a no-brainer to exclude him from this community.

Now, 'warez' is the commonly accepted term for unlawfully obtained software...which, strangely enough is what 'file-sharing' is about. If you did not purchase the 'file' from its lawful owner then it is theft.

Now, look up the definition of 'lawful owner'.....it'll help....


There is no infringement because apple never patented some of the interface options you guys are using. Look at the tabs on the top of the page. Now go to apple.com. Look familiar? Well guess what apple can sue you over that.

Of course its not a violation of copyrights. Of course recoloring your skin and redistributing that skin (even if you give credit to the author) is a blatant IP violation. Having the OSX bar is a BLATANT IP violation. Haveing skins which make windows look like mac os = BLATANT IP violation. Apple OSX can sue you in much the same way microsoft is currently threatening to sue novell for simply thinking about reverse engineering the avalon and indigo API and suite.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20050620/tc_zd/154478/nc:1817;_ylt=Aix3UCplyg8e1op_sAPy42qor7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Or the way Apple was sued because of how itunes looked?
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000450047585/

Or the way Amazon sued Barnes and nobles for one click shopping?

Stop thinking people are bullshitting or being silly when we make claims like this. These are the facts of life
If OSX patented the osxbar, and certain interfaces which are replicated in the skinning community, YOU CAN GET SUED. If apple patented the interface for tabs....YOU CAN GET SUED. Its because of INTELLECTAL PROPERTY. I have nothing against copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks, but its those damn patents.
Having the ability to patent art and skins and interface is just ridiculous. It means noone can replicate or take your work and modify it.
If a skin was patented, you are not allowed to modify it, or attemept to make something based off of it on your own. You cant. period. thats how patents work. And in my opinion, patents, and thus intellectual property, do break down the skinning community, and at the least i know it does nothing to push it foward

oh and 100# post!!!