by Thorsten » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:41 am
I'm glad it has been resolved all amiably - Cobe571, thanks for clarifying.
But for future reference, I would like everyone to really consider the following scenario:
Imagine I am an artist - 3d modeler and photographer. I get a tip from a friend that one of my creations is advertized to be submitted to Flightgear on a Facebook page. I skim over the page, and because I am about to leave on a photo-shoot to Bora Bora, I google FG, get the emails of a few people who look like they run the problem and alert them that it seems someone has stolen my artwork and intends to submit it to FG and that this is not acceptable. Then I drive to the airport and embark on my flight.
In the mean time, there's a submission being made, and one of the developers pulls out the mail I have sent. People stick their heads together, the submitting party argues vocally how it's an insult that their creation is treated that way and that no actual evidence has been brought forward, people pull out the good principle 'in dubio pro reo' and as no evidence is brought forward by myself (sitting on Bora Bora), someone (say Richard) commits the model.
Alas - in this little piece of fiction you're reading, the submitter has actually stolen the model.
So when I come back home three weeks later and check on my affairs, I also suddenly see my commercially available 3d work on the FG repository. I think 'WTF - didn't I specifically warn these guys???' But as they evidently seem to ignore what I say, I call my lawyer. We have a small chat, he looks at the commit history, and next thing that happens is that Richard gets a nice letter, explaining that he put copyrighted work on a pubic repository and asking him to pay 100 US$ for every day it's been there in damages, plus a 300$ fee for the lawyer.
And here we go.
Do you think the lawyer is going to say, well 'Hey Richard, I completely understand that just based on the written warning, you could not possibly know that the model was really stolen - because Thorsten was really obliged to tell you that he went abroad and could not be contacted for a while, so let's drop the whole case?' Do you really think a court is going to accept that defence - especially if you recall for a moment that in this case the model has actually been stolen?
Do you think stealing is only a crime if the victim of the theft reacts within a timeframe and condition a 3rd party like a repository owner sets? Do you really think stealing can only take place for published things (and hence hacking Mrs. Clinton's account and obtaining her emails was not stealing since obviously she never published these private emails)? Do you think getting a copy of the inpublished next blockbuster movie and showing it ahead of cinematic release isn't a problem because the movie wasn't published yet?
I *really* *REALLY* hate to so reliably appear in the role of the spoil sport doing the reality check - I dearly wish you'd cast someone else for this role this year. But the above scenario is not far-fetched and in outward appearance it resembles exactly what we just have seen, and unless we take time and sort out carefully, we *can* *not* *know* who is telling the truth up-front.
Which is why nobody should be offended when being asked for clarification and evidence.
And everyone who doesn't want to end up getting the letter asking him to pay a few thousand bucks better take time and look carefully at all the details.