I think software copying is entirely different - if I were to copy some software and give it to you, the company that made it would lose money because you didn't purchase it from them.
On 10/8/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 10:23:09AM -0400, Rebekah wrote: > > I don't see how this guy making money off of the photographs could be > > considered "damages". They certainly didn't lose any money just > > because he made some . . . > > That's the argument used to justify file sharing, software copying, etc. > And even if it were true (which it isn't) it's irrelevant - the rule > isn't "if you make money, you have to share" - it's "only the person > who owns the rights is entitled to make money; if he doesn't give you > permission then you can't do anything". > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
