You're right, that is all you have to say.

WC doesn't contain, to my knowledge, any commercial copyrighted material.

Lets see:

You have several skins using images from Star Wars that are copyrighted by Lucas Arts. You have several skins using Disney graphics and fonts that are copyrighted by Disney. You have Harry Potter and The Matrix skins that use images copyrighted by Warner Bros.

Give me some time I could come up with more...

Kona - again, by that logic, every fan site on the net should be shut down.  To compare fan art to piracy is ridiculous. 

Well maybe Brad.

But honestly are we not doing the same thing here? I mean we are taking copyrighted images, using them without consent, and uploading them in the form of a skin that millions download.

Technically no different than P2P and piracy correct? Stealing is stealing right?

Anyhow, thanks for listening.

Theres no need for you to respond for him. If he is offended by what I said, he can say so himself.

My bet is Frogboy would be simply 'bemused' rather than 'offended', and is more than capable of saying so.

It is I who is offended by such cavalier dismissal of considered opinion, hence my response. 

This 'I pay or else you wouldn't exist' is a hackneyed stance.....it's a 'the-cart-before-the-horse' statement.  Wincustomize.com would still exist if it's members didn't contribute financially....it would just be 'different'.  Now, if Stardock did not exist due to IP theft making it financially non-viable then Wincustomize.com would not exist, nor would a significant slice of the  Windows-skinning software that is the basis for the skinning community itself.

It is a safe bet that this thread topic is of significant importance/relevance to our community's viability that it has been well read and [most of] its responses are learned and astute.

As for 'Frogboy DOES NOT know how and why bittorrent was created'... I take it you do?  Lead on, McDuff.

Everyone on the planet is free to create his own skinning site if he's of the belief he can handle 'the current Intellectual Property situation' any better than Wincustomize.com.  Go for it...and God's speed....

This 'I pay or else you wouldn't exist' is a hackneyed stance.....it's a 'the-cart-before-the-horse' statement. Wincustomize.com would still exist if it's members didn't contribute financially....it would just be 'different'. Now, if Stardock did not exist due to IP theft making it financially non-viable then Wincustomize.com would not exist, nor would a significant slice of the Windows-skinning software that is the basis for the skinning community itself.

Indeed.  Unless the user is an actual subscriber to WinCustomize.com, they really have no justification for spouting off attitude here.  Just because Ka (or someone like him) but Object Desktop doesn't mean he somehow contributed to WinCustomize.com.  If he was a subscriber to WC, then he could talk. 

I don't tend to get offended by what people who don't know anything about me say.  But at the same time, I'm not inclined to put up with being gratuitiously insulted either.

Hmmm...cache issue, I think....I thought my last comment would have been #48...

Oh, well....

Well, I've heard of Lucas Arts going after people for using Star Wars based things in their modifications for games...

In a way, yes, it is "illegal," but it's also often not worth their effort to go after people.

BTW a similar issue would be the doujin market in Japan, a lot of which is based on copyrighted works (basically they make new manga [often pornographic in nature] and games that are based on actual anime for sale). It's one of those gray area things I think. It's so popular that there are conventions for it. But it's supposedly also "illegal" as well, but the companies don't really care. Perhaps imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? Or maybe it can be used as a sort of indirect talent search.

Brad, come on. You know as well as I do if someone decided to make a skinner's icon set "glassy" and put it up a Devart or some other site, all the kids would be raising hell. If you want to call using a resource hacker to strip every program icon on your computer to run them through a photoshop plugin and upload them, well, we have a different idea of fan art.

The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to decide where and when their art is displayed and distributed. When someone tears it up and uses the pieces to make it "cool" so they can upload it as a skin, they deny the owner that right.

Any lawyer that tells you that you can use the Star Wars trademark any way you like as long as you don't sell it needs to talk to George Lucas' lawyer. But this is an old argument, and there's no point in starting it again. This is something we have to just differ on, as we have for, oh, the last 6 years.

"BTW, WinCustomize costs about $200k to run each year. Perhaps someone should put us in our place and start up a P2P based skinning site. But in the meantime, spare me the strawman arguments. Broadening my complaint to include the underlying technology is intellectually dishonest."

Anyway, I wasn't "broadening your argument", I even stated that you are probably right in this case. I said that this kind of IP strongarming has a chilling effect on ALL P2P. YOU may not villify bittorrent, but others are, and every time this happens they pump more money into Congressmen's coffers to stifle P2P.

P.S. I'm not saying wincusto is any worse than anyplace else about it. Most sites have the same operating procedure. If anyone complains, you take it down.

I just don't make the same distinction about "premium" versus "community" icons. If someone uploads a skinner's icons, even if they are modded, you are nice enough to take them down or reject them. I just don't see the same thing with commercial resources. I.E. I can note Jafo and say "Those icons are so-and-so's." and they come down. I note Jafo and say "Those icons are Adobe's" and they stay up.

Like I said, an old argument. I have no beef with you, or wincustomize, and I agree with what you are saying about services like Kazaa. My problem is that these industries fighting illegal P2P are also threatened by the open nature of the Internet as a whole, and they'll use these precedents to cut much deeper if they are allowed to.

Bakerstreet -- let's get to the brass tacks, do you think fan art (or whatever you want to call it) is realy the same as pirating stuff? Do you really think the guy who decides to make a Superman wallpaper is in the same category as the guy who puts up a cracked copy of Photoshop?  Because if you do, there's no point in us trying to discuss this as we're living in totally different worlds, if you donk't think they're the same then why bring it up?

In my mind, the difference is massive.  When someone puts up and distributes Paul Boyer's Orion icons, they're effectively taking money away from Paul Boyer. He worked hard on those icons and has provided countless free icons to people.  Yet some people have no qualms about taking his hard work that he made in the hopes of making some side-income and distributing it.

Similarly, I see a huge difference between the guy who excessively quotes an article on JoeUser.com and warez.  I think most people would too. 

But let's take it further -- the primary use of WinCustomize.com is not to distribute copyrighted material. THIS is a link to the current most popular items on WinCustomize.com. None of which is fan art or even remotely problematic from the most stringent intellectual property point of view.

By contrast, the principle use of Kazaa and their ilk has been to engage in the illegal distribution of copyrighted material. 

The issue at hand has to do with the INTENT of a given service.  What is the primary use of a given service.  P2P is a neutral technology on its own.  It's really the packaging of P2P and related technologies that become problematic.

You have several skins using images from Star Wars that are copyrighted by Lucas Arts.

If Kona is talking about the Yoda bootskin, I wouldn't call that 'fan art'. Isn't 'fan art' making something that resembles/looks like, etc a well known figure?
Downloading a wall from the Star Wars site, obliterating the copyright, changing to 16 colors, etc. seems more like a rip. I know if I had made the original wall (which would be fan art), I would consider the bootskin a rip.

Brass tacks? Okay, in good spirit, I hope. I never meant, or accidentally, implied that wincusto is like Kazzaa. I'm simply saying that while some people's icons are sacrosanct on Wincusto, some aren't.

Yes, if you want my opinion, using the superman trademark and pirating a CD are relative degrees of the same sin. In both, the owner of the IP has been denied the right to say when, where, and how his IP will be used. Your Paul Boyer example is a good one. Not only does wincusto do that for Paul Boyer, but I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if one of my works was "borrowed" without permission, you'd take it down in a heartbeat.

My quandry has always been, why doesn't EVERYONE, including commercial interests, get that same consideration.

Look at the excuse most people use for distributing mp3s. "It's good advertising for the artist, and I probably wouldn't buy it anyway... and it's not like I am selling it." They are just fans out spreading the messgage. You know that is bunk as well as I do. Yet, when we apply that to Adobe icons, or the wallpaper you mention, There's a difference? Nope. We are just providing IP that doesn't belong to us because people can't get it any other way.

If I made a Superman wallpaper where Superman was a gay, axe-wielding pedophile, the trademark owners would be unenthused to say the least. That's an easy call, but who is to say what they might deem damaging to their trademark? It's for them to say what is flattering, or beneficial, or "fan art", not us. That's why we get permission.

I'm NOT attacking wincusto, and I'm NOT differing with your take on Kazaa and such. My problem is while we are shuffling over to the corporate camp to champion their rights, they are trying to tie down the loose ends of the Internet so that they will remain the eternal middlemen between artists and the public. God forbid the Internet get perverted into a medium where an artist wouldn't NEED a publisher, an agent, a PR guy, and every other leach that has a square inch to latch on. That's a point for a blog of my own, I guess.

The icon thing is a jab, I admit that, because I, subjectively, see a double standard. Otherwise I meant no attack, since I am about as big a Brad Wardell fan as a healthy heterosexual guy can be. (i.e. I'd talk you up to strangers but I wouldn't hang an open-shirt poster of you on my wall.) We're at odds about this, no surprise after 6 years and arguments on skinz.org, wincusto, and finally here. You see fan art as a good thing, I see it as a double standard. It's no biggy to me.

Perhaps if this site used BitTorrent for the download section, there wouldn't be so many server issues. And maybe that $200k bill would come down.

Perhaps if this site used BitTorrent for the download section, there wouldn't be so many server issues. And maybe that $200k bill would come down.

I think what it comes down to is intent. And the problem is intent is very difficult to prove.

Should Google be responsible because its search enginge lets you find warez sites ?
How is this different than having a search engine list P2P sites ?

Does it come down to some % of ligitimate use.

If this is the case then what is the percentage.

Could then other manufactures be held responsible for products that get misused ?

major points...stealing bad...purchasing good...got it. what puzzles me is the music industry's complete and utter stupidity when it comes to legal download services. right now you have 2 ways to buy music...either buy the CD or pay someone like Napster or iTunes a monthly fee for downloads. i've tried these services...they are useless. you pay a monthly fee for songs you don't get to keep unless you fork over another $.99 a track for the ability to burn it to a CD yourself. If you wanted to download something like Pink Floyd's "The Wall" it would cost you in the arrea 25 dollars. Too much money for music. So as for the downloads per your monthly fee...yeah...cancell your subscription and your prized tracks go by-by with it. again...too much money...and you lose. Okay so you go and buy the CD you really want...only to find out that your local best buy doesn't carry anything but the garbage you hear on the radio and a bargain bin full of britney spears crap. again, you lose.

the music industry tells us what to like and shut out smaller acts that actually make music worth listening to. i challenge you to find anything by Hum, National Skyline, Centaur or anything of the sorts at a retail store. personally...stealing is wrong...but so are the record companies. many smaller labels rely on P2P for word of mouth. this ruling only hurts the little guys.

so here's a thought...it can be said that the more something is fought, the more people want what they can't have. the more the music industry fights, the bigger an issue it will become. if this is as big of a problem as they say it is...join them. offer your music for free via P2P (IT'S FREE ADVERTISING!!!)...sell tee shirts, sell tickets to concerts, SIGN MORE ACTS, sell advertising at your shows, broaden your horrizons and your scope.

I can promise you that people would be less prone to pirate a shirt than a CD.

they have no one to blame but themselves for not embracing P2P for what it really is...the best thing that has ever happened to them. what they don't tell you is how many sales P2P generated for them. i would be willing to bet the sales generated would far overshadow the sales lost.

modify...adapt...overcome

welcome to capitalism

If Kona is talking about the Yoda bootskin, I wouldn't call that 'fan art'. Isn't 'fan art' making something that resembles/looks like, etc a well known figure? Downloading a wall from the Star Wars site, obliterating the copyright, changing to 16 colors, etc. seems more like a rip. I know if I had made the original wall (which would be fan art), I would consider the bootskin a rip.

Yeah that's one of the skins I was talking about. It strikes me funny that people here say bad things about P2P and all YET we have copyrighted images being hosted here without the owners consent.

Bakerstreet was right. There is a double standard.

Everyone on the planet is free to create his own skinning site if he's of the belief he can handle 'the current Intellectual Property situation' any better than Wincustomize.com. Go for it...and God's speed....

Yet another history lesson, kona0187.

Yeah - forgive my earlier comments. Seems I have no idea of what I'm talking about.

There's a lot of different threads going on in this single discussion.

1) The ruling.  The ruling is essentially states that if the intended or primary use of a given service is to do illegal things then that company is liable.  This is important because it marks a distinction between say guns, which CAN be used to commit illegal acts and Kazaa whose primary purpose is to commit illegal acts.

2) Bit Torrent.  I understand P2P technology and Bit Torrent.  There are two pieces to Bit Torrent -- the software, which I'm okay with, and the guy's search engine, which I'm not okay with because it is, IMO, primarily used to engage in illegal activity.  I'm totally okay with companies using P2P technologies like Bit Torrent to distribute things.  Good for them. 

3) WinCustomize and copyrighted material.  Simply put, there is a big difference between a "copyright violation" that quite literally takes money away from someone else and one that does no harm.  Someone making a Star Wars boot screen is doing nothing that any reasonable person is going to say harms Star Wars. If anything, it promotes Star Wars. There is no negative financial impact.  By contrast, when someone takes someone's icons that are for sales for $8 and distributes them for free, they are stealing.  We're not talking stealing in some quasi-intellectual sense, we're tlaking good old fashioned theft.  Theft in which you are literally causing an individual or company a direct loss in dollars.  Arguments that comparing allowing fan art and software piracy as being related are like saying speeding an mass murder are related.

4) P2P based skin sites -- If someone wants to set up a P2P skn site, go for it.  It's easy for other people to sit around talking about what other people should do.

4) P2P based skin sites -- If someone wants to set up a P2P skn site, go for it. It's easy for other people to sit around talking about what other people should do.

Not everyone has the resources and/or the knowledge to do so. I'm sure you've bitched about movies or TV shows, but when was the last time you made your own? So that's a weak argument.

Obviously, you're free to run your sites however you please, but perhaps you can explain why P2P, and BitTorrent in particular, would not be a good idea for WinCustomize.

I can see why you might have reservations about distributing your commercial software P2P, but I can't think of why you wouldn't want to use P2P to distribute user uploads.

Not everyone has the resources and/or the knowledge to do so. I'm sure you've bitched about movies or TV shows, but when was the last time you made your own? So that's a weak argument. Obviously, you're free to run your sites however you please, but perhaps you can explain why P2P, and BitTorrent in particular, would not be a good idea for WinCustomize.

I didn't say it wouldn't be a good idea for WC.  We've not really investigated it.  But I do think it would be quite a bit more work to set up than it appears on the surface. 

A semi-famous (infamous?) person said:

When someone 'shares' a file against the wishes of the copyright holder of that file it is not a case of IP semantics, but a case of unlawful distribution contravening the restrictions/limitations of the 'Right of Copy' pertaining to that file.

I agree with this statement whether it is a file being shared or a wall or a bootskin. Well, technically they are all 'files'. I don't believe money or cost or loss really changes anything about the validity of the quote.

That being said, WC can choose to have as little or as much 'piracy' as it wants. It's owners have that say and no one else. It's not my place or anyone else's here to tell WC how to run their site or what they should or shouldn't have up. As Jafo said " ... make your own site ..." (paraphrasing here).

Now since WC has, in my opinion, a reputation as being 'rip-unfriendly', for lack of a better term, there are certainly going to be questions when works appear that would qualify as rips for many people ... especially a group of people (WC'ers) that tend to keep a watch for that sort of thing.

Definitive statements, such as Frogboy's help to clear up that uncertainty about what is acceptable and what is not.

Bottom line, as I read it, is some big name characters/logos/movies, etc. will be used with no permission from the copyright holder and some will not. It is up to the discretion of the site owner.

Deal with it, people.

Yep, 'infamous'....