
Canadian anti-piracy outfit pirates photos for its website - vy8vWJlco
http://torrentfreak.com/canadian-anti-piracy-outfit-pirates-photos-for-its-website-130515/
======
bobsy
What are the anti-piracy people supposed to do? They trusted the web design
firm and apparently were let down. Should the site owner have to vet the
content again?

I was on a site buying icons the other day and it occurred to me. There is no
way for me to know for sure if this icon I am buying is being sold by the
original author. Sure.. I have proof of purchase but if the guy is reselling
without permission I have no idea where it leaves me.

Which brings us back to this. Photos from an image bank were apparently used.
Well.. anyone can be at fault for putting the images in. Naive intern is just
as likely as some rip-off merchant.

I disagree with what the Anti-Piracy people do but I sympathize if they had
nothing to do this and were let down by designers / rogue image reseller.

~~~
dspillett
_> What are the anti-piracy people supposed to do?_

In this specific circumstance: make exactly the same amends they would expect
anyone else to make if they had found someone else inadvertently distributing
unlicensed media, which would probably at least be:

* Immediate removal of the content until such time license to use it is arranged

* Payment in full at the author's chosen rate for licensing the content for the period they were using it

* Perhaps including a significant multiplier if the content creators chose to license per user not per server/service

* Definitely including opportunity costs (such as the interest the content creators could have earned had that money been in their accounts from the point it should have been, or interest they have paid out because the money wasn't)

* Willingly open their doors (or not moan when a law enforcer kicks their doors open) for a third party auditor to verify the state of other media they are using

If they are unable to pay immediately, a payment plan (with appropriate
interest arrangement, increasing the debt by at least enough to recompense the
creators for the continued inconvenience of not having the money and the
continued risk of the debt never being paid if the group folds) should be
arranged.

 _> I sympathize if they had nothing to do this and were let down by designers
/ rogue image reseller._

They would not accept the 3rd party responsibility argument if they were going
after someone, so they should not be able to use it either. They should pay
any costs directly. If they wish to hold one of their suppliers responsible
then they can take separate action to be reimbursed for those funds.

Our sympathy should extend just as far as their's would, which is basically
the "setting up a repayment plan instead of demanding all the money this
instant or sending them to do prison time" thing.

That feels fair to me. If the content creators in question want to be more
generous in their interpretation of the situation then that would be fine too
of course, as long as the group doesn't _expect_ them to be more generous.

~~~
diminoten
If you disagree with what this anti-piracy group is doing, how is it fair to
apply the standards they support? Isn't it necessarily, then, _unfair_ to
apply their standards to anyone, if you disagree with those standards?

It seems like you'd be agreeing with them if you asked them to apply their own
standards to themselves. You either think they're right or they're wrong, and
if you think they're wrong, some poetic justice shouldn't be enough to break
your own moral code. That seems more indefensible than holding an incorrect
set of views - to attempt to knowingly apply views you believe are wrong to
someone because it satisfies a primal urge for vengeance.

~~~
Natsu
He's pointing out that they're not adhering to their own moral code, rather
than trying to hold them to his. That said, they might be able to assert an
innocent infringement defense:

<http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Innocent_infringement>

Standard disclaimers about getting a lawyer if you need legal advice apply, as
always.

~~~
diminoten
I'm saying they should be applauded for not adhering to their own moral code
by those who disagree with said code.

~~~
dspillett
Not if they then continue to apply that code to other people after not
adhering to it themselves. Experience suggests that this is most likely what
they will do.

If this is taken as a voyage of personal discovery and they change their ways,
then we can applaud their critical thinking ans self inspection. Otherwise we
can justifiably cry hypercrit (for all the difference it will make...).

~~~
dspillett
(replying to my own comment instead of diminoten's reply as HN seems to have a
nesting limit)

 _> Either their moral code is something you agree with, or it's something you
don't. Who they apply it to is completely irrelevant._

I didn't say they _had_ to apply their own code to themselves to not be
completely hypercrits - the other option (as I have already explicitly stated)
is to modify their practises to account for their new found enlightenment.

~~~
diminoten
There is nothing meaningful in calling a person hypocritical. It has literally
no impact on the validity of their claims.

~~~
dspillett
Their current claims, no. But it calls into question the validity of their
previous actions which they are now contradicting.

I'm not commenting on which of the two situations is right (perhaps neither
is), if railing against the "one rule for you, one rule for us" thing.

------
RyanMcGreal
This reminds me of when the Conference Board of Canada was caught copying
content for its copyright policy paper:

[http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/think-tanks-
approa...](http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/think-tanks-approach-to-
hollywood-copy-that/article4211630/)

------
InclinedPlane
This seems common, someone should come up with a name for the phenomenon,
similar to Muphry's Law: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law>

~~~
dmiladinov
Two names come to mind:

Irony[1], and

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?[2]

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony>

[2]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F)

------
barbs
Wow, just like this incident:
[http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/01/29/3678851.ht...](http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/01/29/3678851.htm)

------
tekromancr
I have to admit to a bit of schadenfreude whenever I see these "Copyright-
Troll-Bites-Dog" stories; but I think as it keeps happening again and again I
can't help but think that they just show a glimpse into human psychology en
masse. A person may stop pirating content, but the nature of the internet
guarantees that people will continue to do so.

Back when I was a hardcore pirate, (read: poorer than I am now, which is
pretty fucking broke) I would download Gigs and Gigs of movies and music that
I would almost never watch/listen to. I just found it soothing knowing that I
had Terribytes of interesting data; all categorized, indexed and organized,
and that could never be taken away from me if Content Producer A got into a
corporate pissing match with Content Distributor X.

------
j_jochem
This headline just took me 45 seconds to parse.

~~~
lucian1900
Really? It seems fine to me.

~~~
pgsandstrom
The Capitalization Made It Harder For Me.

~~~
lucian1900
Perhaps I'm better at ignoring the capitalisation, having had to deal with it
for a while (my native language doesn't capitalise titles).

~~~
innguest
What's your native language?

~~~
lucian1900
Romanian. Of the languages I've encountered, only English (and German?)
appears to capitalise titles.

------
tagliala
something similar happened here in Italy/other countries... anti piracy
advertising stoled music

[http://torrentfreak.com/rights-group-fined-for-not-paying-
ar...](http://torrentfreak.com/rights-group-fined-for-not-paying-artist-for-
anti-piracy-ad-120717/)

oddly this article is not related...

------
maeon3
How much, and in what ways do I have to modify an image (add features, delete
features, change aspect) in order to make sure I don't get sued because I am
using an image I found on the internet to create something useful for others?

If I can get sued for doing such a thing, certainly there has to be a law
outlining it? Or is it the wild west like: "the cowboy with the fastest
gun/lawyer gets the pesos".

~~~
biot
Here's a step-by-step guide to modifying an existing image to avoid
infringement:

    
    
      1. Download image to local storage
      2. Open the image in Photoshop (or editor of choice)
      3. Using the selection tool, select the entire image
      4. Fill selection area with white
      5. Create something useful for others

~~~
maeon3
Actually that doesn't quite work, because you can create an image, and use a
significant amount of color that's been copyrighted, I think motorola's
pinkish purple is pretty much off limits.

So no, try again... Also, I didn't authorize that you look at my picture. The
imprint you copied of it onto your brain is illegal, and you'll be hearing
from my lawyer.

------
youngerdryas
Torrent freak should be auto banned.

~~~
saddestcatever
Certainly biased - but I've read dozens of thought-provoking articles from
them.

