Web Analytics RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Copyright Reiteration

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Copyright Reiteration

I have been noticing that particular people who follow my Blog have been consistently cloning my post contents of the latest and re-posting these, which are actually originated from my Blog, at other Internet places as if they found the contents themselves, *without citing* the original source of the contents, i.e., my Blog! I have commonly seen this happened at the two major Pentax forums from time to time, namely, at the DPR and the PF.

It should be noted that I have been spending numerous hours and am doing my own hard works in the light of finding any Pentax related news and reports as well as writing technical articles that I think should be interested to many Pentaxians. The behaviour of those people who just knew to steal my contents but refused to cite me is really too disgusting enough! >:-(

In this regard, I feel obliged to remind those content thieves that it is strictly prohibited for what they have been doing and it is simply a serious infringement to my own copyrights and I do not want to see such kind of thefts anymore! Still, I opt not to disclose their names and post the links this time but next time I will not hesitate to do it immediately! By then, don't blame me for any name mentioning if it does happen again! :-o

Comments (24)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Now that was pure entertainment - thanks RH! :)
4 replies · active 626 weeks ago
I am serious and not kidding!
"I am serious and not kidding! "
Yep, that's why it's so funny !
I hope you are not one of the guys who stole my contents then!
You have just made my day :)))

(btw, copying content of your page without adding source is nothing nice and I understand that you are angry)
Oh No!
That's funny because it's been just about a year ago that you used my pictures to create one of your posts. You provided a link back to my website so is that what it takes to make it OK?
4 replies · active 626 weeks ago
http://wkoopmans.ca/notebook/?p=5299
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2012/03/thinnest-k-m...

I don't actually mind but the point is that you can't use other people's images and posts and then complain when the same thing happens to you. I make a point of only using my own images or if I must I download images from the manufacturers press site. You have my permission to use those pictures by the way.
I attributed you at the first place, didn't I?

I think this is just how the Internet is working. If you just don't want anyone directly link to your site and contents, I think you should state it somewhere at your site, or simply, to disable direct linking at your web hosting server.
This conflict must due to lack quality of pentax camera nowadays,
I suggest you to move to nikon,
Or if you love pentax that much, just use pentax me/k1000 as i do.
This "pentax plastic toys" doesnt make any concern,
Even the pentax 645 is fake with sensor size (not 64x45mm but smaller);
When you realize the circumstances you'll realize that "we" have to learn alot,
Try read kenrockwell and you"ll apreciate some sarcasm,
Or maybe you aint real photographer? Well its okay, and i dont write this to make some trouble to you,

Best regard,
With love,
Susan, CA.
I am Yvon Bourque from PentaxDslrs.blogspot.com.

I often use the same source that you use and mention their website. Many sites try to help readers see all that is available on the Pentax Subject and it's my pleasure to mention these on my blogsite, along with credits to them.. As long as your site is not copied in is totality and as long as your post is pointing to another site, it's everyone's right to use the same source. That source should be the one mentioned, not yours. Now if you write a complete article, authored by you, no one has the right to copy your post in its entirity and publish it as their own. I don't believe this is the case here.

Please continue finding interesting Pentax blogs or sites, so that we can all share it with all Pentax owners out there. You know, sites like 1001 noisy cameras is read by thousands and what they do is bring news about photography in general, found on thousand of websites. Theyare not stealing blogs or posts, they are simply gathering information to share with photographers.
Dave's clichés's avatar

Dave's clichés · 626 weeks ago

As far as I have seen the content of your site is obtained from information from other people's blogs or copied from elsewhere,there is practically none of your own information. Be happy with your site and you way of obtaining your material and be grateful for it, your not in a good position to play the "Prima Dona"
Some of you guys just can't distinguish between quoting and cloning? Really? Or you just want to stir up troubles?
3 replies · active 626 weeks ago
I get your point. I don't think I am guilty of this personally, but I wanted to thank you for running this blog. I wonder if you will be still here proclaiming pentax's immediate demise in 5 years. I sure hope so. :)
I think that Dave is trying to say that you're not in any position to gain sympathy due to your own track record.
When has rice not cited and linked to his sources? He has generally been very good about that.
Calm down maybe dave just kidding....
Copyright is an invention of our times, a ghost which we called and which we can't get rid of anymore. And to all you photographers who believe you are creating something of your own - yes sure, but in the end it's a click on the shutter, so why do you believe you own whatever it was in front of your lens? I believe and hope that some time in the future they will all laugh about the copyright-mania of our times. When the printed media will have sunk into oblivion, respectively into insignificance, the generation living then will realize that copyright is simply a huge working program for attorneys without creating value for society.

That set aside, quoting without citing the source is simply arrogant. Whoever does this makes the reader believe somebody else's thoughts are those of his own, while they are truly those of the original poster. Wannabe bloggers do that, not serious people with thoughts of their own that would be worth sharing.

Just my 2c. Feel free to quote me but name the source.
Chris
1 reply · active 625 weeks ago
Yes, exactly.
“Copyright is an invention of our times, a ghost which we called and which we can't get rid of”
I guess the dumbest post was saved for last. Are you saying individual or corporation that invests resources into developing a technology that is patented does not own that intellectual property? Is that what your little brain concludes? That’s like telling private business owners “you didn’t build that” really only someone without a brain could come to that conclusion. I guess the level of intellect shown here can be traced to the fact that most of the population depends solely on government for their education.
Put it this way no one will invest or work without a reward (Money). It’s a simple free market concept. Without copyright & patent law no one would be able to reap the rewards of their own creative work. You know like creating lifesaving medicines and such, folks do not work invest and create out of the benevolence of their hearts.
3 replies · active 625 weeks ago
Not everything that is simple is correct. And if you need to insult, you are probably wrong.

By the way, you are reiterating the stuff that IP-owners would like you to believe, namely there would be no creative work without patents. Well how come the wheel was invented?

And the media industry would like you to believe there would be no music without today's restrictive copyright laws. Ah, right, so they did not have music a thousand years ago?

(Just for the record, where did you get your education if not from governmental institutions?)
Chris - interesting choice of examples... So can you name the inventor of the wheel? And did he/she benefit fairly from his/her insight, considering it changed the world? Guess not.

And indeed there was music a thousand years ago, and the business model in those days was that you either paid the musician or it was being done (at the musician's choice) for free. Generally it was a case of no fee = no music. Now technology allows us to steal from our troubadours... It's different.
You don't see the point and make the common mistake of turning the argument upside down. Laws are made so the society has a benefit.

For example, if we could have music only by enforcing a copyright, then by all means, I'm all for it. But that assumption is not true: since copyright laws are NOT needed in a society to bring up music, tell me why society has a need to enforce an artifical notion of "ownership" to digitized data, while criminalizing millions of people (probably including you and me) who occasionally copy a song without paying for it.

Or do you see a certain right carved in stone that past business models have to be profitable forever? In that case, one should have forbidden recorded music in the first place, because it killed many performing musicians' career.

C

Post a new comment

Comments by