
it's the fact that it was stolen by the daily mail
( ,
Thu 20 May 2010, 23:24,
archived)

in the words of jay and silent bob:
I want my motherfucking movie cheque!
( ,
Thu 20 May 2010, 23:28,
archived)
I want my motherfucking movie cheque!

yet a lot would have or do have several music or film torrents on the go. But still, boo Murdoch ect ect
( ,
Thu 20 May 2010, 23:56,
archived)


I wasn't having a go at the people who did the work or saying that the people who claimed it as their own shouldn't be diciplined, I was just pointing our that for an on-line community that uses other peoples work in it's pictures about 80% of the time, it sure does seem to care about copyright when it's their work.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:21,
archived)

Your words man, you assume a lot about an internet community and people you have never met
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:32,
archived)

Actually I remember a thread in which people where discussing the release of the Wolverine torrent being early. Someone posted screen-shots, it was discussed and if I recall nobody objected the activity because of copyright.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:37,
archived)

have you missed the fucking point completely?
People here get pictures change and animate them. It used to be "fair use of copyrighted works" what do you think it is?
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:45,
archived)
People here get pictures change and animate them. It used to be "fair use of copyrighted works" what do you think it is?

would i think some under "use for review" which is fair use (and...still will be?)
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:51,
archived)

Thats what all mine are from now on. EVEN THE TOAP!
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:56,
archived)

In that particular case it wasn't about the screenshots being posted, I used it just to make the point that, from what I have observed people here usually have a relaxed view on copyright.
I probably need some sleep now but I hope I didn't cause too many misunderstandings, g'night.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:57,
archived)
I probably need some sleep now but I hope I didn't cause too many misunderstandings, g'night.

www.pirateparty.org.uk/
hope they don't copyright a cancer drug I hope you never need.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 1:00,
archived)
hope they don't copyright a cancer drug I hope you never need.

Are you actually saying that posting a link to the pirate part website with the comment "go get a clue" isn't implying that I agree with copyright?
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 1:06,
archived)

when an image they made/altered is posted in some right wing nazi rag? An idea they've put out to only see it "copyrighted" by another person.
I don't care what you agree with. I don't agree with the things you've been posting.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 1:15,
archived)
I don't care what you agree with. I don't agree with the things you've been posting.

No, perhaps you should read what I have actually posted and reply to that.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 1:19,
archived)

if the last few days on thing site have shown anything - it is that people here care a great deal more about other things and people.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 1:22,
archived)

b3ta isn't a hive mind, "someone here did x once" is not a valid reason to be whining at a different group of people now.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:45,
archived)

there are a huge number of people who use b3ta, and a tiny number who had this conversation you remember having happaned once, its not one mass group who all think and do the same stuff, quoting something some b3ta member did at some point is not relevent to the people having this conversation now.
...do you even know what your point is?
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:56,
archived)
...do you even know what your point is?

( ,
Thu 20 May 2010, 23:58,
archived)

we don't claim that we wrote the songs or directed the films
( ,
Thu 20 May 2010, 23:58,
archived)

1) The Mail added copyrights to the pictures.
2) Murdoch doesn't own the Mail you spazzer
( ,
Thu 20 May 2010, 23:58,
archived)
2) Murdoch doesn't own the Mail you spazzer

I thought Associated Newspapers did, and it was reasonable assumption considering some of the stuff they produce, but still, my apologies.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:23,
archived)

You didn't mean "etc" did you?
Edit: Was that an edit I saw you do there?
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:26,
archived)
Edit: Was that an edit I saw you do there?

yes and I was about to thank you for spotting that, but I had to respond to someone else's post before his attention span ran out.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:32,
archived)

you are a person who doesn't do anything creative and cannot understand why his comments have missed the mark so much.
Just look at the pictures and shhh,
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:35,
archived)
Just look at the pictures and shhh,

'who hasn't done anything creative in the past few months on /board but still lurks enough to make observations'
would be more accurate.
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:46,
archived)
would be more accurate.

OH? oh, that point has been made :P
( ,
Fri 21 May 2010, 0:04,
archived)