Rips off Jay Maisel and gets caught but doesn't think he did anything wrong....

[Ramiro Elena]

I strongly doubt that the turnover was even remotely close to $30.000

It didn't get to one third of that.

[Marko]

Actually, settling may have been Maisel's decision to be a nice guy. I assure you that his lawyer would have gotten a very large share of that amount. Copyright law has both criminal and civil consequences, and in court it would probably have gone mich worse for the other guy.

Probably.

But it didn't go to court, so neither of them lost in the legal sense of the word. Neither of them won anything either. They both lost something and even the lawyers didn't get all that much.

Probability is what Vegas is built on, so that everybody loses, only the House wins a little. A little bit here, a little bit there...

And Marko, I would be astonished to discover that Maisel's attorney did not start with a cease-and-desist letter, with a request for prior sales information to demand a license fee.

Well, me too, that was my point. Nobody mentioned CAD, everybody keeps talking about the lawsuit. We can guess and assume, but I hate guessing and I hate assumptions even more. All I said was based on what was published - and I was basing most of it on Andy's blog simply because what he published was reviewed by both sets of lawyers and is presumably unchallengeable.

We take the guy's clearance of the music copyrights as an act of good faith, but it may have been acquiescence to reality not driven by honest motives, based on his other statements. One thing I know, the Internet is utterly inept at separating black and white hats.

Another base point for me was the vitriol in this thread from the get go and then on even in responses.

If we insist on legalese, then his reasons for going clean on all the other rights in his project do not matter, all that does is that he did bona fides clear all of them in advance, except this one.

But if we look at it from either human, common sense or just plain logical angle, then his overall approach does matter, a lot, as it establishes a certain pattern of doing things making an honest mistake much more believable then otherwise.

But most of the posters ignored any of those angles and just went all out - "perp", "thief", "digerati" (the only pejorative with at least a trace of sophistication), "bizarre", "disgraceful" and on and on... At least four of the posters turned to personal insults against me too, right away, simply because... why? Because I was willing to cut the guy a little slack while still saying that he was probably indeed mistaken in his belief? Or is it because I missed the memo from higher up that banished mistakes and required everything to be classified as either outright crime or the lowliest of the low, including those who dare suggest otherwise?

I should be shocked by this simple mindedness and incivility, but I am not really. It is just another indicator of the overall downward slide of our larger society. Just look at any other site on the Internet that allows readers' comments and you will see the same and much worse.

That's because there are no white and black hats out there, there are only gray hats. And pointy hats. Lots and lots of those.

[Greg Miller]

I also think that Maisel acted like a complete dushbag who went all-in not so much because of the copyright - there are things called cease-and-desist letters - but because he felt like sticking it to the digital crowd.

Well, you resorted to name calling (later recanted) and assumptions/guesses ("all-in", "cease and desist letter", "sticking it to the digital crowd" - 3 guesses in one sentence - good job) in one sentence.

I think Rick's point was that there most likely was a cease and desists letter - which is what I stated earlier as well. A typical first step in a matter like this is a cease and desist letter, with a demand for an accounting, and a demand for compensation. That is pretty much what Andy describes in his blog - he just did not use the words "cease and desist". What you were asking for seems to be something not typically done - a cease and desist letter with no demand for compensation. Even if Jay did not want compensation, you still lead with that because that is what gets the other party's attention.

[Marko]

Greg,

Rick is doing just fine getting his points across and I am doing alright myself getting them. Neither of us needs an interpreter. And if I ever feel a need for an IP lawyer, I have no problem finding a decent one either, they're dime a dozen down here.

As far as name calling goes, a few messages up, you asserted that I was "not getting it". I conceded the point and bowed out, so what's the point in rehashing the whole thing? But, if you really feel like beating a dead horse, have at it by all means, just leave me out of it. Please?

[Greg Miller]

You bowed out by continuing the same discussion with Rick? I guess I'm the one not getting it now. But I'm done if you are.

[Marko]

I bowed out of further discussion with you because I am not too keen on the personal attack thing and I don't feel like responding in kind.

I hope we are both getting it now?

[Greg Miller]

I get it now. My remark "sorry you are not getting it" was not intended to be a personal attack - I truly was sorry. So I apologize if it came across that way.

Feel free not to respond to anything I post here, but I don't see why that should compel me to sit on the sidelines if I see you make comments that I do not agree with.

[Greg Miller]

And just to avoid any hard feelings about my last statement, I say that because this is a public forum - there are other people reading your comments besides me. So if you write something that I feel warrants a response, I will do so. If the conversation were private, then that would be a different matter.

[Marko]

I get it now. My remark "sorry you are not getting it" was not intended to be a personal attack - I truly was sorry. So I apologize if it came across that way.

Feel free not to respond to anything I post here, but I don't see why that should compel me to sit on the sidelines if I see you make comments that I do not agree with.

Fair and clear enough.

And just so I make myself equally clear, this being a message board, I don't mind disagreeing, quite to the contrary, that's what makes for a good and lively discussion. I respect your opinion even when or especially when we disagree.

What I do mind, however, is taking disagreement personally. It wasn't just the "not getting it" thing, it was also the spelling thing and the insistence on something I said and then retracted. I don't mind offering a mea culpa when it's called for, I don't mind even being the only one to do so, but those who feel like beating it further will have to do it without me. It is this what I had in mind when I asked to please leave me out.

So, all being said, apology accepted, no hard feelings. Let's move on.

[William McEwen]

Too many people raised in the Internet culture believe "if I can get my hands on it, it's mine." That Andy is a real horse's ass, and I would have liked to see him get jail time or community service had he not settled for a paltry sum.