Hardcore Sledder banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
For those of you that have not seen this, check it out...then read on and please pass it along to anyone you know who rides. Also drop Mr West an email! If you need an id and password for the link below, let me know and I'll send you mine.

http://www.firecat.info/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=6262


Dear Mr West,

After having read your letter to Rob Lyons I have decided not to subscribe to your magazine/website. What his website does is help Actic Cat owners with their problems. I have been snowmobiling for 32 years and have subscribed and read plenty of magazines. The only magazine that is worth reading is SnowTech. I see where they have just jointed forces with Maximumsled.com. This is who will receive my subscription money for the next three years!

Do you or anyone in your organization realize that you are about to lose
a minimum of 4-5000 suscriptions!? You may have wanted to handle this in a much different way!

As you can see I am passing this along to all who ride and they will pass it on, and so on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
962 Posts
Nope...Not overreacting. Well Said, I`m not going to resubscribe either and my renewal was due...

I`ll look into others.

The pictures Nick used were also on Maximum Sled and other sites so whats the big deal...

Its not like nick took credit for taking the pictures or anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
The name of the games is: FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Well, breaking the law is breaking the law no matter how you cut it. Copyright infringments
are a serios deal......especialy to attorneys. HCS should take Mr. West's advice and remove
any stolen (no matter how innocent) material and just leave it at that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,123 Posts
Originally posted by hunter@Mar 4 2003, 12:10 PM
Well, breaking the law is breaking the law no matter how you cut it. Copyright infringments
are a serios deal......especialy to attorneys. HCS should take Mr. West's advice and remove
any stolen (no matter how innocent) material and just leave it at that.
hunter,

Get your facts straight before posting...there wasn't any copyright infringement...if there was I ask you to please provide facts regarding such or....keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.

my reply from amsnow.....

Mr. Blume,

Your AMSNOW Online Membership of $19.95 has been refunded as you requested.

The credit charge was reversed at 10:00am on 3/4/2003

Your paid membership has been closed.

Thank you.

Linda Holm
AMERICAN SNOWMOBILER
www.amsnow.com
651-738-1953
[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,899 Posts
Guess they are afraid of hcs and Rob Mr. West is starting to sound like one of the green people that are trying to shut down snowmobiling. Looks like they just lost another sub.HCS is the best and there not in it for the $$$$$$$$$
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,228 Posts
Thank god you guys don't have your fingers on the nuke button. Read Wade Wests response at amsnow. Let it go guys some of you are starting to show your ages and your short fuses here. :wacko:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,123 Posts
I read mr. west's response and to me it seems as though he is trying to defuse the situation as best he can....the fact still remains mainecat that the pictures were not taken from his site. Until you have proof otherwise I feel as though there hasn't been an overreaction...please read my follow up post to mr west also. You have been outspoken on this subject since the beginning as I have...I ask that you bring proof other than a letter to the table.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
You need to realize that it is a copyright infringement no matter what. Yes Wade worded it wrong and went about his actions in the wrong way but once an image is copied it is illegal. Here is the short form of the law (now I am going to look like the bad guy or supporting Wade, which I am not):


Copyright Laws in the Digital Domain
Copyright Laws and the World Wide Web
The emergence of the World Wide Web as a medium has posed a number of issues that challenge our traditional interpretations of copyrights. The digital technology of the World Wide Web makes copying original materials extremely simple and convenient for all users. Whenever you inspect a page your browser downloads the files that make up that page. Downloading constitutes copying materials since digital replicas of the text, images, etc. must be transmitted over a network to your computer in order to be viewed. These copies, however, are transient--the legal term is "ephemeral." They exist only temporarily. Even so, it is very easy to save these items in a more permanent state for other uses.

Here are several cases of employing materials downloaded from the Web. Which of these are cases of copyright infringement? Which could be argued with a Fair Use defense?

A person incorporates verbatim a substantial portion of text downloaded from a web site into a report. The report is printed and distributed publicly without attributing the source of the downloaded material.


A person incorporates a large portion of a text document downloaded from a web site into a report. The report does correctly attribute the authorship of the downloaded material incorporated. The report is printed and distributed publicly.


A person downloads a graphic or picture from a web site and posts it on his or her own home page without noting the source or origin of the image.


A person downloads a graphic or picture from a web site and posts it on his or her own home page. On the page, the source of the image is noted.


A person downloads a graphic or picture from a web site but reduces it size and scale and replicates it over and over to create a pattern or design. This repeated pattern is then used as a background for the a web page.


A person uses his or her browser to download a copy of the HTML code for an especially attractive or interesting page designed by another. The HTML code is a set of commands that specify the format, design, and features of the page. The individual then modifies that code by replacing some of the text and graphics and posts it as a page on his or her own web site.
Did you say "all?" It is very likely that each of these cases qualifies as copyright infringement.

Case (1) is both a violation of copyright and plagiarism. The culprit in this instance not only copies someone else's work, but also tries to take credit for it as well. By contrast, the individual in case (2) probably doesn't seem so culpable. However, posting copied material without the consent of the author makes him or her a copyright pirate nonetheless. Giving credit by itself does not constitute fair use.

Cases (3) and (4) are very similar to those of (1) and (2), respectively. The fact that we are dealing with images rather than writings is not significant.

In case (5), the person infringes on the author's sole rights to produce derivatives of an original. Even if the resulting product is very different from the original, this may still constitute copyright infringement.

The last case, (6), is similar to (5), though not quite as clear cut. It would be defensible to use the design of another page as a means of learning how to create similar effects. However, to produce a substantially similar design--with little modification or enhancement--would likely fail as fair use.

Linking Pages from the Web

As you have probably noticed, a number of web pages contain external links to other pages. These links provide access to pages not stored on the referring page's local server. And, these linked pages are usually created by different authors. Is this legal? Do we have to gain the permission of the author to use external links on our own web pages? Such uses are generally permissible due to the principle of implied public access. The fact that an author posts his or her pages on a publicly accessible server means that anyone is free to view it. Consequently, in most cases, we can legally create links to publicly accessible pages since it does nothing more than notify readers of its whereabouts.

Authors may limit access to their own pages using various means. Pages may be protected so that only authorized users have access. However, extreme measures like these do not have to be taken. An author can either expressly prohibit links to his or her pages or object to those who have created such links. In these instances, posting external links on your own web pages would probably constitute improper use. For this reason, the safest policy is to notify or seek consent from authors when you create external links to their pages.

Unfortunately, law and legal precedent are not clear cut on all of these matters. The current laws have evolved from older technologies and could hardly be expected to anticipate the realities of future ones. The digital technology of the World Wide Web severely challenges the rules of the game for the simple reason that it has radically altered the playing field. Simply put, the means and opportunity for copyright infringement are abundant in this new medium. Thus, a new method of distribution for intellectual property has upset the established balance between producers and consumers. Whether the remedies are legal, technological or both, these issues will not be resolved until this balance is restored.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,228 Posts
Firecat I am not taking sides here. They have copyright laws for a reason. Rob as a photographer knows these laws exist but maybe someone else does not that moderates this site. Rob should not have posted the letter for all to see. Wade West maybe should have tried more to contact Rob. Instead of posting the letter he should have talked to the moderator about it and be done with it. Get over this guys.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top