|
rrrADAM
Jun 17, 2002, 1:46 AM
Post #1 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
If any members are lawyers, and wish to take on another site for "copyright infringement", you get ALL money won.
For details, contact rrrADAM.
~Adam
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Jun 17, 2002, 2:31 AM
Post #2 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Oh no...
/me pops a bag of popcorn in the microwave and waits for the show to start.
|
|
|
|
|
russman
Jun 17, 2002, 2:48 AM
Post #3 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2000
Posts: 2848
|
I know what this is reguarding
see what happens man
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jun 17, 2002, 5:18 AM
Post #4 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
I tried nice and polite first...
Let the owner of the site pay out of his pocket for the indescretions of his Admins, Mods and users.
Then maybe next time polite will work.
Where's Stu (ooze) when ya need him ??? Being a lawyer and a great antaganist, this is right up his alley. He would actually enjoy making this guy bend over.
Screw removing the "copyrighted material", he had that chance. Take money from him.
[ This Message was edited by: rrradam on 2002-06-16 22:22 ]
|
|
|
|
|
climbchick
Jun 17, 2002, 3:58 PM
Post #5 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 808
|
If the illiterate and incoherent cretin who posted above is the owner of the site in question, any attorney fresh out of law school should have NO problem bending him over and making him squeal. Get 'im, Adam, wish I could help!
Pass the popcorn, Piano
|
|
|
|
|
orngave
Jun 17, 2002, 7:17 PM
Post #6 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 26, 2002
Posts: 220
|
Wow three whole posts, hiding behind this name really backs up all the words you are spraying.
E.B.
|
|
|
|
|
climbchick
Jun 17, 2002, 7:22 PM
Post #7 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 808
|
oh, oh, I've been insulted by an idiot! Ouch, it hurts!
Adam, I think some of the comments made by mighty moron up there are libelous so maybe you can get two lawsuits for the price of one!!
|
|
|
|
|
pander
Jun 17, 2002, 8:15 PM
Post #8 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 15
|
who exactly would you sue? and for what? the owner of the domain name? boldering.com generates zero profit. it is owned and maintained by a climber who does it for the love of climbing.
real friendly over here.. way to represent rock climbers everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
choppie
Jun 17, 2002, 8:21 PM
Post #9 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 60
|
I would start by bringing a suit against
RRRadam for posing on the Susie A Block with a cigarette and then trying to pass that off as bouldering.....it is V0------ at the most and I once saw a small dog onsight it......
smoking while scrambling is rad??????
[ This Message was edited by: choppie on 2002-06-17 13:46 ]
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jun 17, 2002, 8:21 PM
Post #10 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
I appreciate the backup everyone, but there is no need for any of you to be needlessly flamed here. Please let me take the heat on this, as I have thick skin, and I'll even through myself under the bus for a laugh... Hell, feed me raw oysters, and watch my have an explosive accident in my pants. I'm too young for "depends".
This all started from a "polite" post on another site asking that copyrighted photos from our Photo Gallery not be copied and posted to that site without the consent of the owner of the photo here at RC.com. It was replied to with such well thought out replies as "bite me", and quickly degraded from there.
~Adam
|
|
|
|
|
doosh
Jun 17, 2002, 8:33 PM
Post #11 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 521
|
A non-broken link would help...
Funny stuff.
Hi!
It's lox.
Hehe.
I just thought I'd stop by and see how things are going over here. I think that the air perhaps needs to be cleared on a number of things surrounding this weekend's incursion into http://www.boldering.com by Mr. Rrradam, famous smoking climber form the gunks.
First off, rrradam came over to boldering.com and, instead of introducing himself and playing nice like you would hope any of us would do if we came over here (see beginning of my post), he decided it woudl be cool to stir the waters of controversy and post some really inane bee-ess about how the professional photogs who upload images to this site should have some say in how their images are being used.
Fair enough... The administrative staff at boldering.com has decided to give rc.com half of all profits earned from the use of photos hosted on http://www.rockclimbing.com's site. I think this is WAY ABOVE the industry standard and, considering legal precendent suggest that images uploaded to a public domain are well.. in the public domain and can be used by the public for any purpose except making money (and eventhen I think there has to be a copyright on the image), unnecesarily generous.
Gentlemen, since our total profit margin is ZERO, you can expect a check for half of that in the mail sometime soon.
Then, when rrradam proceded to endure the sort of response you would get from walking into a group of people and telling them they are all idiots, he "turned mean," made a couple more trolling posts, and left with his tail between his legs.. hasn't showed his face since.
You all are familiar with a troll. You don't like it when your board gets trolled. But! When your admin trolls another site, you pledge your support to him and condone his activity. Uncool!
Thank you for reading this... I can only hope you don't call a dirty name like fruit cake or moron. I am neither.
So... to sum up:
1. rrrAdam = common troll
2. copyright laws = do not apply here
3. .11a/b = warm up
Oh, and I will never "hide behind anonymity"... feel free to pm me or seek me out in the #rockclimbing.com irc chat room.
Assemble your bank-account draining lawyers...
[ This Message was edited by: doosh on 2002-06-17 13:37 ]
|
|
|
|
|
pander
Jun 17, 2002, 8:39 PM
Post #12 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 15
|
why even ask us to stop referencing the pictures on your server? what makes you mad about climbers posting pictures for other climbers to see..
you had to realize a concern as trivial as yours would lead to the reaction you got. you registered your name and then posted it live in a public forum .. where all the users could read it and reply to it. you didn't PM the administrators or the moderators, you didn't even take it to the users (who are still nameless) who supposedly posted a copyrighted picture.
does rc.com really put the paperwork through to the copyright office and actually retain ownership of these images? who told you to come over to boldering.com and post that message, rockclimbing.com, or the photographers..?
|
|
|
|
|
campimp
Jun 17, 2002, 8:39 PM
Post #13 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2002
Posts: 6
|
adam, you little twig, i was away at my daughters birth during this whole troll fiasco. you throw rocks at the gunks again and i'll put out your cig in your eye. nice pics gumby.
-criz.
[ This Message was edited by: campimp on 2002-06-17 14:05 ]
|
|
|
|
|
doosh
Jun 17, 2002, 8:59 PM
Post #14 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 521
|
Boldering.com
Boldering!
OMFG!
Get your Texas on.
|
|
|
|
|
pander
Jun 17, 2002, 9:05 PM
Post #15 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 15
|
so does this mean i can sue you for copyright infingement cus pictures from yankonthis.com have been posted on this server?
just checking...
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Jun 17, 2002, 11:26 PM
Post #16 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
At the bottom of every page:
This website and all of its content and design are Copyrighted 1995-2002 under US copyright laws.
You cannot reproduce or distribute this material in any way without the written consent.
There isn't much to argue about.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jun 18, 2002, 12:11 AM
Post #17 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
This was my original post, and I quote...
Quote:
As one of the owners of RC.com, it has been brought to my attention, and I see the pics in a thread below, that you are copying pics from our database onto your site.
RC.com has several "professional" photographers who own copyrights to their pics, and have chosen to share those pics with the users of RC.com. As the text states in the photo gallery, "you may not reproduce ANY photos without the written consent of the owner of the photos." I personally do not care, I'm the guy bouldering in The Gunks while smoking, but there are several pics that you have posted here that are submitted by pros, and you are infringing on copyright laws by copying them without their consent.
You have a large enough user base here at b.com that you too can post pics of your users, as we do, and not have to copy and post pics of our users.
Sincerely,
~Adam 'rrrADAM' Bingel
Owner RC.com
Introduction, polite, and signed with "Sincerely". I would say that that was pretty cordial, but it was met with flame.
Lox... I covered all that you said I should have in the above reply the first time I posted. Are you suggesting that I do not reply back with flame when flamed ???
rrrADAM
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jun 18, 2002, 12:37 AM
Post #18 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
BTW Lox... Thanx for the nod, I never saw that post. You know...
"...a man who smoked while leading. To the leaders credit he lead birdland very well and seemed very polite, cordial and proficient."
But I'm still just a climber, NOT a hardman... If anything, I'm just a "polite, cordial and proficient" gumby.
|
|
|
|
|
freehueco
Jun 18, 2002, 3:45 AM
Post #19 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 18, 2002
Posts: 13
|
Hi everyone,
As someone who is new to both RockClimbing.com and Boldering.com, I felt I had to jump into this one. I also happen to work as a Photo Lab Tech and run a website full of climbing pictures.
First off, the photographer always owns the copyright to a picture. Unless he sells it to someone else. So, theoretically you should always credit the photographer when posting a picture. This should cover my butt if I were to post a picture by, say, Corey Rich on my website( as long as I credit, and link to, the source). However, if he normally sells the picture, then I am losing him money, and thus infringeing on his copyright.
If the source is not copied onto the new page, there is no arguement. If I write the code in such a way that the picture shows, but the source is still the original website, there has been no law broken. Doing this:
is not illegal.
Now, if someone were to copy that picture and sell it for profit, that would be an infringement on the photogs copyright( although, if someone wants a picture of Sean that bad, they can have it).
sombebody wrote:
At the bottom of every page:
This website and all of its content and design are Copyrighted1995-2002 under US copyright laws.You cannot reproduce or distribute this material in any way without the written consent.There isn't much to argue about.
The problem with this is that the picture has not been reproduced or distributed. It has merely been referred from another website. This, as we know from Lox's post is not against the law.
Mike
http://www.freehueco.com/
[ This Message was edited by: freehueco on 2002-06-17 20:50 ]
[ This Message was edited by: freehueco on 2002-06-17 20:54 ]
|
|
|
|
|
dominic
Jun 18, 2002, 6:40 AM
Post #20 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 23
|
Like, FreeHueco, like I'm gonna, like, sue you, for, like, posting your, like, URL on, like, this site, coz, like, that's copyright infringement.
Hey rrrAdam:
suk it
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jun 18, 2002, 8:25 AM
Post #21 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Can you tell that it's Summer Vacation ???
All the little Elementary School kids have their capes on, and are playing the parts of "Internet Super Heros" on the Net.
C'mon kids... At least Lox put some thought into his flame.
"bite me"... "suk it"... "your [sic] a fag"... etc...
I used those in the 5th and 6th grade. My 11 year old niece can bag on me much better than that.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...es/smiles/rocker.gifrrrADAM http://www.rockclimbing.com/...es/smiles/rocker.gif
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jun 18, 2002, 11:49 AM
Post #22 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
While I'm sure that several users, myself included, from both sites would love to watch this flame continue, I must act the part, so I have to bow out of this flame and "run away with my tail between my legs".
Sorry, I can't play with you anymore... But that's the nature of my job here.
~Adam
|
|
|
|
|
doosh
Jun 18, 2002, 2:11 PM
Post #23 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2002
Posts: 521
|
Hehe...
The least you could do... in the face of overwhelming legal evidence.... is admit you are wrong like a big boy, and do it here.
The use of rc.com photos will continue unabated.
rrrAdam, you seem like you could be a cool guy... why waste time climbing .11a/b when you could run with the fast company and be strong?
I mean really.
five ELEVEN?
|
|
|
|
|
pander
Jun 18, 2002, 2:57 PM
Post #24 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 15
|
pianomahn. you troll.
i know from copyrighting my own music that you can put © on anything and you've effectively copyrighted it. most likely however, if it comes to court you would be far better off with paperwork in the copyright office covering each and every photograph on your site, under which each artist would have to sign off ownership of the art to you the copyright holder...
furthermore if you guys were to email john at boldering.com and ask him to take the pictures off of his server he couldn't.. know why? cus they're not on his server.
therefore this:
"This website and all of its content and design are Copyrighted 1995-2002 under US copyright laws.
You cannot reproduce or distribute this material in any way without the written consent. "
means nothing.
in short. the only way you can stop people from referencing pictures on your server is to delete them from your server. this is the way the internet works. i'm sorry you are such stingy people that you actually feel like something is being stolen here. it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
toobigtoclimb
Jun 18, 2002, 3:55 PM
Post #25 of 70
(2893 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: 426
|
Here's the latest on this issue:
The massive transmission of electronic mail and postings on electronic bulletin boards further compounds the issue of what the Copyright Act does and does not protect. The U.S. Copyright Office has stated:
...posting on an electronic bulletin board could constitute publication. A delivery of the means by which any member of the public may obtain a copy of a work by downloading it, is in effect the same as if one had actually delivered a copy. There is a distinction between 'general' publication and 'limited' publication. The definition given above is that of 'general' publication. A 'limited' publication occurs when there is an effective restriction on the class of persons who can obtain a copy of the work and a restriction on the purpose for which that copy can be used [2].
The Copyright Office has also pronounced that it "would readily register a work as published that was posted to an electronic bulletin board by or under the authority of the copyright owner."
The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, signed by the U.S. in 1989, does not require authors to register or provide notification of their copyright. It would seem, therefore, that electronic mail and bulletin board postings are considered original works protected by the Copyright Act in the U.S. and in countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention. Since there is no international tribunal for resolving international copyright disputes, plaintiffs file law suits in countries favorable to their cause.
Several court cases are in progress that will define this issue further. At this point in time it appears that the Copyright Office must support copyright law on a medium as prolific as the internet.
The internet has changed American and worldwide culture in many ways. The resolution of many issues, such as copyright and intellectual material distribution is yet to be determined. Cases are now pending that are seeking damages against "free" sites that make no money or profit. However, the Plaintiffs are representing that websites build intrinsic value through popularity as evidenced by the selling of such free websites for a profit. Plaintiffs in these cases are suing not only for damages due to copyright infringement, but against future intrinsic value of the site.
My advice, and one I believe current legal opinion and precedence support, is to leave posted pictures where the owner intended them to post. If you would like to use them on another site, just ask the owner. I believe this is what Adam stated originally.
BC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ATTN Lawyers... Free money for your work.
1
