The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I haven't checked out the app -- and I have no intention of doing so -- but supposedly PA is one of the comics being shafted.
I didn't see it mentioned on the front page, so I'm assuming M&J haven't heard about it yet, but I would hate to be that guy when the shit hits the fan.
Supermega, three word phrase, and nedroid are all missing
Bad taste in webcoms, jerk
0
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Digital copyright law would give these folks ground to sue the app creator, especially if he is selling the app or getting add revenues from it without their permission.
something something open something Richard Stallman something don't buy me a bird
0
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
DMCA?
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Digital copyright law would give these folks ground to sue the app creator, especially if he is selling the app or getting add revenues from it without their permission.
There's a "free" version (with ads). And a "Pro" version, where you're paying to remove the ads.
On the one hand, this is a shitty thing to do, and kind of a strange thing since it accomplishes very little you couldn't do yourself with a number of free RSS aggregators that exist for mobile devices.
However with that in mind I'm not even sure if it's illegal or all that much different from using an aggregator in the first place.
Digital copyright law would give these folks ground to sue the app creator, especially if he is selling the app or getting add revenues from it without their permission.
There's a "free" version (with ads). And a "Pro" version, where you're paying to remove the ads.
On the one hand, this is a shitty thing to do, and kind of a strange thing since it accomplishes very little you couldn't do yourself with a number of free RSS aggregators that exist for mobile devices.
However with that in mind I'm not even sure if it's illegal or all that much different from using an aggregator in the first place.
In that case, PA and others could try the populist hate defense. Worked great on Thompson and that other crazy guy from Ocean's Marketing.
Uhh... the guy isn't stealing. it's an aggregator.
Don't want your shit to be seen outside your controlled domain? don't post an rss.
It's an aggregator that he's selling
For money
So you're paying him to view someone else's work without them signing off on it which strikes me as a thing that isn't supposed to happen
Selling a device that lets you read comics isn't illegal, and I'm not sure if it legally requires the permission of the creators either to point that device at their already freely accessible comics.
If the service was somehow scraping the creator's site and rehosting without permission, that's one thing
but if they have an RSS up with their stuff, there's not much ground to stand on.
Before I nuked my Google Reader feeds, I had a 'Webcomics' folder that I would use with an iOS RSS reader. Basically the same thing. Selling ad on the free version is kind of scummy though.
Uhh... the guy isn't stealing. it's an aggregator.
Don't want your shit to be seen outside your controlled domain? don't post an rss.
It's an aggregator that he's selling
For money
So you're paying him to view someone else's work without them signing off on it which strikes me as a thing that isn't supposed to happen
Selling a device that lets you read comics isn't illegal, and I'm not sure if it legally requires the permission of the creators either to point that device at their already freely accessible comics.
Yeah, remember when web browsers used to cost money? Stealing every website.
0
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
The part I imagine would run into legal problems is if the authors requested their media be removed from his service and he declined to do so.
See, I'm not sure. I mean, I don't know. But let's say that you had a site that you paid a fee to enter. On the site, it just has links + re-hosted images of popular comics.
Even if the creator doesn't want you to link to them, or to re-host their image, what can they do about it? It's a public website. The owner of the pay to enter site isn't claiming that the work is his, he is just collecting them for you so you don't have to go to each site every day.
Now, that, and this app, is a really stupid thing to pay for, but I don't see how it's illegal, even if the creators object.
0
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
It's always going to be annoying to comic makers that someone else has found a way to make money which includes using their work, because generally comic makers are really awful at making money.
It's always going to be annoying to comic makers that someone else has found a way to make money which includes using their work, because generally comic makers are really awful at making money.
btw thanks for letting me use your comics on my cafepress line of shirts! they're super popular!
The part I imagine would run into legal problems is if the authors requested their media be removed from his service and he declined to do so.
See, I'm not sure. I mean, I don't know. But let's say that you had a site that you paid a fee to enter. On the site, it just has links + re-hosted images of popular comics.
Even if the creator doesn't want you to link to them, or to re-host their image, what can they do about it? It's a public website. The owner of the pay to enter site isn't claiming that the work is his, he is just collecting them for you so you don't have to go to each site every day.
Now, that, and this app, is a really stupid thing to pay for, but I don't see how it's illegal, even if the creators object.
It's a hard call, IANAL but reading the law as it stands:
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Really all depends upon the nature of RSS feeds. If they are considered traditional peer-to-peer file sharing (which they have been), there could be grounds for some kind of litigation. But as the authors are posting to the RSS feed themselves they are probably going to be interpreted as giving consent. Should they remove their work from an RSS feed and request previous images removed from the aggregate and the aggregate refuses, I think there could be a case. Otherwise probably not.
Still sucks. Best way to kill this thing would be probably to sick public opinion on them.
Posts
Reddit, for whatever reason, rips webcomics from their sites, throws it on imgur and posts it
One of the creators came in once and said hey can you either not do that or failing that at least link my site so I get some traffic
For the thing that I created
That you're basically stealing
And they were screamed at by a million stupid assholes
Bad taste in webcoms, jerk
nobody puts achewood in a corner
Except for Onstad
Who I'm markedly less fond of after the whole "taking preorders for a product that will never materialize" thing
I had to look this up but I am very glad I did
There's a "free" version (with ads). And a "Pro" version, where you're paying to remove the ads.
On the one hand, this is a shitty thing to do, and kind of a strange thing since it accomplishes very little you couldn't do yourself with a number of free RSS aggregators that exist for mobile devices.
However with that in mind I'm not even sure if it's illegal or all that much different from using an aggregator in the first place.
I only read the web via a series of blind people passing handwritten notes to me in a completely dark room whilst I wear my tinfoil hat.
Iggy Pop's
Or Wu-Tang's
Wu-Tang's rider includes like 400 condoms or some ridiculous number like that
Don't want your shit to be seen outside your controlled domain? don't post an rss.
In that case, PA and others could try the populist hate defense. Worked great on Thompson and that other crazy guy from Ocean's Marketing.
Satans..... hints.....
I don't think creating a for-profit RSS aggregator is actually illegal.
Stupid, but I don't think entirely illegal. If this proves profitable, though, fuck the world.
Everyone should want to steal beartatoes. And then not do that, because its wrong.
Selling a device that lets you read comics isn't illegal, and I'm not sure if it legally requires the permission of the creators either to point that device at their already freely accessible comics.
I demand we tar and feather this guy, and the guy from FARK too. Just in case.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
whoa whoa
fark is my homepage
stop censoring my internet!
on the other hand, the list doesn't have [your least favourite web comic here]. It should because it's the best comic of all.
But I need something to focus my moral outrage on!
but if they have an RSS up with their stuff, there's not much ground to stand on.
Before I nuked my Google Reader feeds, I had a 'Webcomics' folder that I would use with an iOS RSS reader. Basically the same thing. Selling ad on the free version is kind of scummy though.
if they post an RSS they can't say what you do with it.
That's the whole point of an RSS. You're screaming into the world at large, you don't get to pick and choose who listens.
Yeah, remember when web browsers used to cost money? Stealing every website.
Well - that's akin to asking someone to remove a link to their web page from your web page.
Don't think you're actually obligated to.
See, I'm not sure. I mean, I don't know. But let's say that you had a site that you paid a fee to enter. On the site, it just has links + re-hosted images of popular comics.
Even if the creator doesn't want you to link to them, or to re-host their image, what can they do about it? It's a public website. The owner of the pay to enter site isn't claiming that the work is his, he is just collecting them for you so you don't have to go to each site every day.
Now, that, and this app, is a really stupid thing to pay for, but I don't see how it's illegal, even if the creators object.
Pffft you're just mad about CAD not being included
Gay marriage between late term aborted fetuses that are Communists.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
In their sexiest pony cosplay outfits.
Playing the worlds of warcrafts
btw thanks for letting me use your comics on my cafepress line of shirts! they're super popular!
So that's why the birthrate is declining!
My dream come true. Now I can finally marry a dead communist fetus!
It's a hard call, IANAL but reading the law as it stands:
Really all depends upon the nature of RSS feeds. If they are considered traditional peer-to-peer file sharing (which they have been), there could be grounds for some kind of litigation. But as the authors are posting to the RSS feed themselves they are probably going to be interpreted as giving consent. Should they remove their work from an RSS feed and request previous images removed from the aggregate and the aggregate refuses, I think there could be a case. Otherwise probably not.
Still sucks. Best way to kill this thing would be probably to sick public opinion on them.