Octogenarian photographer web-mobbed by copyright freeloaders

[richardsperry]

Luis,

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but IP lawsuits are based on how much the stolen property cost the artist stolen from, and

what the thief could possibly make from the theft.

 

It's not based on how much the thief makes with his other ventures.

 

 

 

If I steal a photo from you, you're lawyer is going to have to prove how much lost income you incurred. And compare

that with the received income I have derived from it.

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Can someone send me an invite to Google+, please?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, that's impossible as <em>invite</em> is a verb. Someone could send you an <em>invitation</em> though!</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wow, this has to be the most ludicrous thing I've read in some time. In other words, the system worked because the guy without as much money was forced to cave before the actual merits of the case could be heard?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's real justice at work there!</p>

[parv]

"No, that's impossible as /invite/ is a verb. Someone could send you an /invitation/ though!" -- Steve S.

 

Love you, Steve, sometimes.

[steve m smith]

<p>Reversing the trend towards dumbing down the language - one word at a time!</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>.... and trying to learn not to post the same thing twice!</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Brad - "</strong>I beg your pardon? Cheap. Please don't put words in my mouth or even suggest that was on my mind."</p>

<p>I took Baio at his word. You suggested ulterior motives having nothing to do with what he has, in effect, said. To me, this is clearly not taking him at his word about his own thoughts and actions. In my mind, this leaves two possibilities: Baio is 1) Delusional or 2) Lying.</p>

<p><strong>Brad - "</strong>Was such a denial even made here regarding that subject?"</p>

<p>When it is constantly being referred to as some form of thievery, yes.</p>

<p><strong>Mark Ci - "</strong>Wow, this has to be the most ludicrous thing I've read in some time. In other words, the system worked because the guy without as much money was forced to cave before the actual merits of the case could be heard? That's your idea of the system working?"</p>

<p>That is exactly how the system works. The guy with the biggest, meanest (which usually means most expensive) lawyers wins most of the time. At least the legal system in the US, if not planet Earth. If that's the most ludicrous thing you've ever heard, congratulations. It's not how I wish it worked, but it is how it works most of the time.</p>

<p><strong>Richard Sperry - "</strong>Correct me if I'm wrong, but IP lawsuits are based on how much the stolen property cost the artist stolen from, and what the thief could possibly make from the theft.<br>

It's not based on how much the thief makes with his other ventures.</p>

<p>If I steal a photo from you, you're lawyer is going to have to prove how much lost income you incurred. And compare that with the received income I have derived from it."</p>

<p>Here, from the Copyright Office: "Of course, there are provisions built into the copyright law that are designed in part to provide even the copyright owner of modest means with a reasonable prospect of recovering not only compensation for infringement but also the expenses of litigation in a successful infringement suit. Unlike most areas of the law, copyright law permits a court to award a reasonable attorney's fee to a successful plaintiff (or defendant).<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat032906.html#N_6_">⁽⁶⁾</a> Moreover, a copyright owner may elect to receive an award of statutory damages of up to $30,000 per infringed work—and up to $150,000 per work in cases of willful infringement—in lieu of actual damages and profits.<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat032906.html#N_7_">⁽⁷⁾</a>"</p>

<p>Maisel settled for about 20% of what he could have won, provided everyone here who has called Baio a thief (willful infringement) is right, and that this would have been the way it wojuld have been adjudicated. I find that curious. Like I said, maybe he took pity on Baio.</p>

<p>Calling Baio a "thief" (he was not judged, and in this country, one is innocent until proven guilty, except in sites like the stockbroker's and others) is not fair. The proceedings never got that far.</p>

<p>It's been fascinating to read this thread. You get the last word. Thanks to Simon for bringing it up, and to everyone else for their comments. I'm out of here.</p>

 

[Brad_]

>>> You suggested ulterior motives having nothing to do with what he has, in effect, said.

 

Ulterior motives? I suggested no such thing. I merely asked how *you* could state so definitively as to

what he could or not could afford.

 

Stop the cheap shots making stuff up and putting words in others' mouths. It's offensive.

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Brad - "</strong>Ulterior motives? I suggested no such thing."</p>

<p>and...</p>

<p>"Stop the cheap shots making stuff up and putting words in others' mouths. It's offensive."</p>

<p>Ok, Brad...I was going to let this go, but your insults in that last line call for a response.</p>

<p>Yes, u-l-t-e-r-i-o-r motive (just one) is precisely what I meant, and can provide support for beyond the "it makes sense to me" rationale. Let's start with the definition:</p>

<p>[Online Dictionary] ul·te·ri·or (<img src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ubreve.gif" alt="" align="absbottom" />l-tîr<img src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif" alt="" align="absbottom" /><img src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif" alt="" align="absbottom" />-<img src="http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif" alt="" align="absbottom" />r)<em>adj.</em><strong>1. </strong> Lying beyond what is evident, revealed, or avowed, especially being concealed intentionally so as to deceive:</p>

<p>Here is the ulterior motive you suggested: "More *likely*, Baio's attorneys advised him he had no winning defense and settling was the path that made the most sense."</p>

<p>Why is the above quote an ulterior motive you ascribed to Baio? Because, if you ever do read what Baio had to say about this, you'll discover he <em>never</em> mentions it as a motive for his settlement, yet, you're saying it is the "*more likely*" motive. Therefore it would fall under the "intentionally concealed" rubric, and meet the qualification for an ulterior motive, and necessarily, also a lie or delusion.<br>

____________________________________________________</p>

<p>Brad, at this point, I respectfully suggest that it's best if we let this go, and allow each other to leave the table with saved face. You understand what I am saying. I understand what you are saying , and it is a safe bet those two positions are not going to get any closer any time soon than they are at the moment. I'm sure we both have better things to do with our energies than butt heads in this thread.</p>

<p>Besides, I'm sure there's a lot more Baio bashing to come, and you and I are getting in the way.</p>

<p><em> </em></p>

[Brad_]

Luis: Here's what you said, quoted directly at 12:52am:

 

"Brad - "How can you state that so definitively? And speak to what he could or could not afford?"

Easy: I'm going by what he said. You can say he is a liar, I cannot without a lot more evidence. "

 

Cheap shot. In no way shape or form did I even suggest he is a liar. Those are *your * words, out of *your* mouth. And then as a cheap shot trying to

ascribe them to me. When I simply asked *you* how you could make such a definitive statement.

 

Then... After I objected to your insulting characterization, you took the tactic suggesting I had ulterior motives:

 

"Brad - "I beg your pardon? Cheap. Please don't put words in my mouth or even suggest that was on my mind."

I took Baio at his word. You suggested ulterior motives having nothing to do with what he has, in effect, said."

 

 

As I said earlier, your tactics are offensive. Now after being called on it you're trying to obfuscate. Sad. Please stop.

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Forget about it, Luis. Let the argument and homeless counselor ego go... </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I was a defendant in a patent and intellectual property suit. Right before trial, after my small company had already gone through $250K in legal fees, my attorneys who saw I was running out of money decided to bale out. They didn't want to spend the time and expense at trial with the possibility I couldn't pay them fully with what I had left. So they asked the justice (this was in federal court) to relieve them of having to continue to represent me claiming I wasn't paying them. I protested vehemently telling the judge they already got $250K, there was more even if it was a little slow coming. Plus, it's too late and too difficult to get another lawyer up to speed to properly defend me. So we all sat in the justice's chambers, my lawyer making his points and me making mine. Well, the judge used to be a lawyer so you know how it turned out. But what really galled me is what the judge said to me. He looked me straight in the eye and summed up his decision, "Mr. Klein, you know the American jurisprudence system is not always fair." And that's from a Federal justice in the Southern District in NYC. I wanted to punch him in the nose! So I got another attorney who did the trial side. I lost. I should have settled. It's always better to settle. Baio would have lost and did the smart thing even if he would have won. Otherwise the lawyers get it all anyway.</p>

<p>Baio paid $32K. What happened to the album covers and albums?</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>" ...you know the American jurisprudence system is not always fair."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lawyers are not obligated to provide free services just because they are paid for prior services. Same with photographers. Same with people licensing their copyrighted images. Even if it makes you want "to punch [them] in the nose".</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>John,</p>

<p>There are few professions which can charge money despite a negative outcome, or non completed outcome.</p>

<p>Imagine if you contracted with a General Contractor to build your home for 250K, and he did not finish building it. In fact he just quit during production. And still collected the 250K.</p>

<p>Most professions are OBLIGATED to finish the job before getting paid. Yours is one of the exceptions.</p>