Ares: ripping off p2pnet
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- On Sunday, “I have no problem with p2pnet stories being quoted in full or in part elsewhere,” I said, going on »»»
The idea is to get the message out and obviously, the more people carrying it, the better.
That’s why I publish under a CC Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada license.
But a company called Ares is grabbing p2pnet posts – all of them – and re-running them word-for-word.
“Ares is quickly becoming the most popular file sharing program today,” it declares.
“When you download Ares, there is no spyware or adware either.
“***Note*** The version of Ares Galaxy on SourceForge.net is no longer being updated and does NOT work. If you are looking to download free music and get all the free downloads you want, then get Ares today.”
No thanks.
It’s nicking my posts wholesale and doesn’t even include links published in the originals.
However, I’ve now been able to contact the owners, who tell me they ran the original Ares, and who’ve promised to properly link to, and credit, p2pnet posts.
So I’m cool with that.
I’ll do a post explaining things tomorrow (January 13) .
I will, though, leave the remainder of the original post intact for historical purposes and so the comments, which I want to keep, make sense.
Cheers!
Jon
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
Copyright ARES.NET © All rights reserved
This is by no means the first time p2pnet posts have appeared on other sites, and I’m sure it won’t be the last. But this case is particularly bald-faced.
Not only is Ares, a commercial operation, running p2pnet articles without attribution or permission, its links to other p2pnet stories go back to the Ares site, under which we see “Copyright ARES.NET © All rights reserved.”"
Copyright ARES.NET? All rights reserved?
Bollocks they are. And under ‘Proprietary Rights Restrictions’ its TOS states »»»
All material on the Site including without limitation all informational text, photographs, graphics, audio, video, messages, files, documents, images or other materials (collectively, the “Materials”), whether publicly posted or privately transmittedthe Materials on any web site or networked computer environment, or use of the Materials for any purpose other than personal, non-commercial use is a violation of the copyright, trademark, and other proprietary rights in the Materials and is expressly prohibited. Nothing on this Site shall be construed as conferring any license under any of the Internet Download Store or any third party’s intellectual property rights, whether by estoppels, implication or otherwise.
WTF?
When I quote someone or something, I always mention the source, with a clear link, several times in the body copy and once again at the bottom with a headline and date of publication.
In other words, I do my best to give full credit and attribution, and I never run anything of any length without previous permission, up to and including items clearly published under a CC license.
Rip offs
I met Dan Tynan online and he’s now a friend of mine.
Yesterday, I did a story slugged Thanks for the mammories, Facebook, quoting an article Dan ran on his own site, and which had originally appeared in Infoworld’s Notes From the Field blog under Robert C. Cringely’s by-line.
So this means not only did Ares rip me off, it also ripped off Dan and Infoworld.
I have arrangements with a number of other writers and sites which means every time Ares does this, it’s abusing them as well.
This is a fair use issue. And Ares is definitely not being fair, to massively understate the situation.
I have no idea how long this has been going on, or how long this Ares site has been online.
For now, here are some of the data as they appear under whois.domaintools.com »»»
- Website Title: Free Music Downloads From Ares. Download Music With Ares P2P
- Meta Description: Official Ares download site. Download Ares p2p file sharing program. With Ares you can download music, movies, games and more. Get your free music downloads with Ares.
- IP Address: 208.86.159.95
- IP Location United States – Illinois – Chicago – Cogswell Enterprises Inc
p2pnet @ shaw dot ca
Stay tuned
(Cheers, Dan)
Jon Newton – p2pnet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Looking at the Ares site, it’s got that too good to be true look to it and smells like a scam to me.
Reposting your stuff without attribution and making it “their” copyright like that does stink.
Is it possible that you can get the EFF or somebody like that to help you either sue them or force them to attribute the work as yours? I mean, an attribution at the end of each article would make the problem go away, wouldn’t it?
You know, I wonder if this isn’t another miivi style scam by the RIAA?? We’ll soon know.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I have a lot of respect for you as a journalist in general and a person in particular, Jon. But it sounds a lot like you think the entities you mention here are doing the same thing to you ( and the others you have arrangements with ) that the record companies say the file sharers are doing to them – and you don’t like it any better than they do. No disrespect intended, just my two cents.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
^^ As I say in the post, this isn’t a copyright issue, it’s a fair use issue. And it’s beyond the pale.
Cheers!
January 11th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
I have a lot of respect for Jon, too. But I’d still like to know what else this site is hosting, and why.
There’s a big difference between enjoying music that you’ve already purchased by making it more portable, and wholesale snagging entire articles without attribution, imho.
From their own TOS:
http://www.ares.net/termsandcondition.html
“You agree not to: (a) upload, transmit, post, email or otherwise make available to the Site, any content or other material in any format that: (x) is false, inaccurate, unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, invasive of another’s privacy, and/or otherwise objectionable; (y) infringes any third party’s intellectual property;…
…Proprietary Rights Restrictions
All material on the Site including without limitation all informational text, photographs, graphics, audio, video, messages, files, documents, images or other materials (collectively, the “Materials”), whether publicly posted or privately transmittedthe Materials on any web site or networked computer environment, or use of the Materials for any purpose other than personal, non-commercial use is a violation of the copyright, trademark, and other proprietary rights in the Materials and is expressly prohibited. Nothing on this Site shall be construed as conferring any license under any of the Internet Download Store or any third party’s intellectual property rights, whether by estoppels, implication or otherwise.”
January 11th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
hmm .. i wonder if the ares bot to pick up to pick up this story.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Looks like a fake site is trying to gain credibility. That’s noteworthy, not “doing the same thing to you.” Forewarned is forearmed. Thanks Jon!
January 11th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Reading their site: disgruntled ex-Ares employees?
I know nothing about this company, just my first impression.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
^^ Cashing in on the well-known Ares name?
Tomorrow I’ll be doing a post on AntiSpyware, a p2pnet advertiser, and a scam company called AntiSpyware XP that’s doing the same.
Cheers, Maggie.
January 11th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
“It’s nicking my posts wholesale”
But it hasn’t posted this one as far as I can see
January 11th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
A few days ago you were asking if your readers still found value in this website. If scum-sucking bottom feeders like the site you mention are nabbing your stories wholesale, obviously they find value in your material.
I don’t mean to downplay your frustration with this, I would be pretty p.o.’d too.
January 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Thanks, Dorothy. I think.
Cheers!
January 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Trying Whois for 208.86.159.95
Connection established.
whois.arin.net.
Results:
OrgName: Cogswell Enterprises Inc.
OrgID: COGSW
Address: 53 W Jackson Blvd.
Address: Suite 635
City: Chicago
StateProv: IL
PostalCode: 60604
Country: US
ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.wiredtree.com:4321
NetRange: 208.86.152.0 – 208.86.159.255
CIDR: 208.86.152.0/21
OriginAS: AS19066
NetName: WIREDTREE
NetHandle: NET-208-86-152-0-1
Parent: NET-208-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.WIREDTREE.COM
NameServer: NS2.WIREDTREE.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 2008-01-24
Updated: 2008-01-24
RAbuseHandle: ABUSE1587-ARIN
RAbuseName: Abuse
RAbusePhone: +1-312-447-0510
RAbuseEmail: abuse@wiredtree.com
RNOCHandle: NOC2219-ARIN
RNOCName: NOC
RNOCPhone: +1-312-447-0510
RNOCEmail: noc@wiredtree.com
RTechHandle: NOC2219-ARIN
RTechName: NOC
RTechPhone: +1-312-447-0510
RTechEmail: noc@wiredtree.com
OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE1587-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-312-447-0510
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@wiredtree.com
OrgNOCHandle: NOC2219-ARIN
OrgNOCName: NOC
OrgNOCPhone: +1-312-447-0510
OrgNOCEmail: noc@wiredtree.com
OrgTechHandle: NOC2219-ARIN
OrgTechName: NOC
OrgTechPhone: +1-312-447-0510
OrgTechEmail: noc@wiredtree.com
————————————————-END
Yup, IP matches URL … but the contact address is different. So u need to find real address, a call should do it. I would think their ISP knows best and can confirm unless they moved and didn’t change it with ISP on purpose.
Then all u need to do is send a bill to Cogswell for damages [about 1k per article is going rate] and same from your affiliates. Also send copy to their ISP telling them if this is not stopped immediately they are liable as well.
Many US companies think they are king shit and can get away with anything … grrrrr
January 11th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I’m sorry, Jon, but I can see the irony here. Technically, you’re right, but perhaps in some over-siplistic way, someone out there thinks that you don’t “get” the pain of seeing your creative work copied and distributed outside your control, and they’re trying to explain it to you. If I were you, I would just let them do it.
P.S. I think they stole their copyright message from http://www.freegrantpros.com/privacy/
January 11th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Hi Andy:
I feel no pain at all. And it’s absolutely nothing to do with control.
But it is to do with me feeling highly pissed when a hard-core commercial company uses p2pnet not to pass info on, but to further its own mercenary ends.
Just like Crapple > http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18078#comment-932786
And Microsloth > http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18114#comment-936722
Cheers!
January 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
my thoughts were someones trying to stop the dissemination of information you provide on your site, by mixing your articles in with a scam.
If ares.net was going for Irony -I see what you did there.
Not much you can do about it either unfortunately.
I didn’t click/browse the link but I’ll take your word for it + screenshot.
My only question is how long its been goin on?
January 11th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Just paid them a visit, and they have published this story!
January 11th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Jon: Heres how you stop them.
Modify the RSS file to post the IP address to the top and bottem of each post. As this is only the RSS feed, and those using scrapers/rss readers wont really care about seeing their own IP address for a short while, it shouldent be a problem.
What would happen then is this:
If Ares is auto-blogging, it will post the IP address of the server/computer scraping the RSS feeds, and post it to the articles. You then take the IP address, and blacklist it in cpanel/plesk/wordpress (any of those will do).
However, it may be more prudent (especially if they just copy + paste the information) to hide the IP address as well using “” or by making it invisible to those reading, but still possible to copy that text (You see that alot with some sites who input small scripts that people copy, and when pasting it, it alerts the reader where the article came from). When pasted, it gets posted, and you proceed to blacklist.
January 11th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Well, that answers my only question. They are definatly scraping the information, and not bothering with any editing.
http://www.ares.net/news/992/Ares_ripping_off_p2pnet.html
i have a screenshot in case they decide to delete it
January 11th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Jon, you really need an edit function….
I dont know if you noted this or not, and i’m too lazy to read the comments, but thought i would mention they filter out p2pnet.
“Subscribe to .net | | rss feed: http:// .net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http:// .net/index-wml.phpÈ
January 11th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
Hi Adam:
Thanks. Interesting.
“They are definatly scraping the information, and not bothering with any editing.
http://www.ares.net/news/992/Ares_ripping_off_p2pnet.html”
Yup. Meanwhile, I’m not worried about stopping them myself. I want them to Cease & Desist.
Any lawyers out there’d who’d like to help me make them do that, pro bono, and also make the point CC is what it says it is, not a license to steal?
p2pnet @ shaw dot ca
Cheers! And thanks …
January 11th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Well, if you want some help, i did some work for php-net.net for a couple of years (now dead).
Contact me in the e-mail address i posted if you want my help. I can either “Stop them” or make this little scam backfire.
January 11th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
“Any lawyers out there’d who’d like to help me make them do that, pro bono, and also make the point CC is what it says it is, not a license to steal?
”
Indeed, that’s why I mentioned the EFF in post 1. Perhaps you could approach them and ask for help – they might just do this for you, you never know.
January 11th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Jon:
I gotta ask here: why are you “royally pissed?”
I’m usually on your side of most issues (hell, I tend to be a lot more “hardcore” in my opposition to the existing copyright regime than a lot of people here, even!), but I really think making an issue of this is a serious mistake on your part:
1. Andy completely missed the point and assumes that there’s “irony” to be had here, in that he thinks your experiencing some kind of “butthurt” over your “creativity being stolen”. That’s clearly not the case, because you’re not a control-freak in that way. P2pnet has always been, as you said, about “getting the info out”, and that’s why you use the creative commons license — specifically so that people won’t cringe when they re-use stuff from here. (Admittedly, I see the “creative commons” licenses as somewhat of a capitulation to the existing IP regime, but that’s beside the point.
So it’s not about “control”.
2. As to you being pissed because Ares is a “hardcore commercial outfit” reprinting p2p material word for word “for commercial purposes”: Again, so where’s the beef, bro? I mean, the most anybody can say here is that Ares serves as YET ANOTHER way to get the info out there. Whether they’re hypocritical enough to impose restrictions on re-use of THEIR re-use of p2pnet stuff, p2pnet still exists, and YOU don’t impose the draconian bullshit, so as far as I can tell, your conscience is clean in that regard.
Whether they’re selling a product or whatever else, throwing a hissy fit about how they’re “violating your license terms” or whatever does nothing but make YOU (and p2p advocates in general) look seedy: getting all pissy over this (whether you intended it or not) just gives apologists for the current IP regime ammo to accuse you of hypocrisy.
Would you be pissed if they’d taken time to change a few words around?
Is it their attempt to impose draconian licensing-terms (which people will violate anyway) that has you angry?
Please don’t give “Sam I am” and his ilk the satisfaction of seeing you play “poor victimized, trodden-upon Creator/innovator in need ot monopoly power”.
I mean, seriously — it’s a really short step from “they reprinted ‘My” article to “They “stole” my riff”, and an even SHORTER step from that to the RIAA’s whimpering over mass disregard for their precious century-plus monopoly bullshit.
Don’t take this the wrong way, Jon, but just walk this one off. If you don’t, you give the anti-p2p crowd ammo, and we can’t really afford that, now can we?
January 11th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I don’t think I’m playing “poor victimized, trodden-upon Creator/innovator in need ot monopoly power”.
But I was wrong to say this is stealing. Rather, it’s plagiarisation – the deliberate and improper use of my work without my knowledge or permission by a company or person claiming it to be theirs — “Copyright ARES.NET © All rights reserved”.
“The copyright status of the work is irrelevant; directly copying a public-domain work is still plagiarism unless the original work is noted,” says the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism]. “Even when material is not covered by copyright, it is still important to state its origin, including its authors or creators.”
I’m not asking for payment (although that’d be nice
). I’m asking for credit and attribution.
And I strongly doubt that my objections give, “apologists for the current IP regime ammo to accuse you of hypocrisy”.
Cheers!
January 11th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Henry, as a musician who is also a writer, I can see Jon’s point here, and it just doesn’t fit to do the riff/article comparison.
January 11th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
Jon, I will freely fess up to the occasional copy and paste of one of your articles. There are some things I do and do not do when this happens. One is that I include with in the copy and paste no hyperlinks within the article. It is text and only text that is posted elsewhere.
Without exception, each and every time any article from your site is posted, a code tag is placed at the end with p2p.net link to the original source article, so that anyone that reads the copy and paste can go to the original, where it came from, to read it and refer to any links at your site.
I would stress again though this is an occasional and from time to time event. It is never whole sale and it is never a scrape. It is always a hands on copy and paste with the credit for the source without fail given.
I very much respect your work and the efforts you put into it. I can not spam your site at other places to get them to come to you other than in this backhand way by providing your site as the source and a method for them to find you, even if understated.
January 11th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
^^ No problem and no worries.
Cheers!
January 11th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
As Jon is pointing out this is a simple case of theft, your allowed to use the text from here only under the authority of a licence, if they do not meet the conditions or terms of the licence terms they have no licence thus they are theives.
A simple DMCA notification should see them off Jon, email today and assert your rights, alternatively just complain here and see nothing happen, you dont need a lawyer as this is a clear case.
They are stealing copyrighted content.
January 11th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
“January 11th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
As Jon is pointing out this is a simple case of theft, your allowed to use the text from here only under the authority of a licence, if they do not meet the conditions or terms of the licence terms they have no licence thus they are theives.
A simple DMCA notification should see them off Jon, email today and assert your rights, alternatively just complain here and see nothing happen, you dont need a lawyer as this is a clear case.
They are stealing copyrighted content.”
Jon:
The above — Quartz — is exactly what I was trying to warn you against in this regard. Somehow, I feel vindicated now, because — lo and behold — there are several posts here already really digging the supposed “irony” of this situaiton.
And, lest we forget here, Jon, CC licenses are predicated on the notion that the existing copyright regime is legitimate (as is the GPL, by the way). The difference between CC licenses and the infamous EULAs a lot of “proprietary” software vendors use is, at best, one of degree: both of them rely on the notion of a “rights-holder” who bestows privileges on a user-base, and should have the capacity to stipulate “authorized” uses. That’s what’s at issue here ultimately — not any arguments about plagiarism.
Maggie:
“As a musician who is also a writer” you should be able to see how Jon’s peevishness in regard to this Ares thing plays right into the hands of those who defend the current version of IP law. The whole point is that Copyright is a State-granted monopoly power. That’s why the RIAA lobbyists/their corporate overlords want as long-term a monopoly as possible, with as few exemptions as they can get the Government to do, no matter what such protectionism does to technology, “fair use” etc.
I agree that plagiarism is a different issue, but is it worth legitimizing “pro-IP” folks’ in their perception that you agree with the existing IP regime? Once you’ve conceded the validity of IP law as it stands, to my way of thinking p2p advocacy loses all credibility.
All I said here was: if it’s about info, and not about control, leave it alone.
Read back on Maggie, Quartz, and the “irony” guy’s stuff here, Jon, and you see the pattern emerging.
January 12th, 2009 at 12:11 am
http://www.questioncopyright.org/classroom_teacher_on_copying_vs_plagiarism
The Above link is a really good explanation of what I think you’re trying to say here, Jon.
No worries.
January 12th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Salient point of the above article:
So what does this all mean? It means that people fighting for copyright reform have an uphill battle, because they have to clarify our culture’s ambiguous use of language before we can all participate in the same nuanced discussion.
Which was my point exactly:
By getting all intense about this — without making it explicitly clear upfront that your peeve was that they didn’t CREDIT you — you’ve opened yourself up to a whole raft of misunderstandings:
1. One person thinks it’s “ironic” because they’re doing to you, what p2pers do to the RIAA companies (which is, sad to say, semi-accurate, at least as far as you stated it. They’re violating your license terms, p2pers are violating the RIAA’s license terms. The underlying question of whether those license-terms — and the IP regime upon which they depend — is VALID, just never gets asked by a lot of people.
Case in point: Quartz. Then YOU go and call what they did “stealing”, further dignifying the RIAA viewpoint.
Lessig and Stallman are strange to me, because the licenses they promote (CC and GPL) attempt to simulate genuinely-free information ecology by the (somewhat contradictory) method of ENFORCING various permissions. Importantly, both licenses are STILL more of less restrictive, and retain the option of “lawyering up” on someone who violates them.
In principle, not much different from what the RIAA lobbybots are trying to get government to do.
The difference between “Free culture” licenses and the “public domain” is vast, if you think about it.
I’d personally suggest just emailing Ares and requesting that they link back to p2pnet. After all, they ARE a p2p company/info site. Why add MORE DMCA bulllshit to the world?
January 12th, 2009 at 12:25 am
CIPPIC, EFF, your media lawyer friend
Seek compensation and lost of advertizing revenue and losss of reader ship and loss of hits.
SUE EM LIKE that wayne crooks guys.
January 12th, 2009 at 2:03 am
Jon,
There IS the possibility that someone is deliberately plagarizing the site in order to draw you into a situation where you (seemingly) “go against your own published principles” by arguing about the “user rights”. It would be best to first investigate what the actual “mission” of the Ares site is, before doing any knee-jerking.
That’s not to say I advocate in any way what they’re doing.
They’re certainly violating the CC license provisions, and posting it as their own “copyrighted” work.
All I’m saying is, “Know the enemy”, before deciding to do anything that may, indeed, be “playing into their hand”, as previously said. If they really are “baiting” you, what they’ve done so far HAS, it would seem, accomplished the task of getting up your dander.
January 12th, 2009 at 2:06 am
It might even be far more constructive for a bunch of “us” (not you, Jon) to do our part to weed out this site’s intent, by being openly “vocal” about their practice. That might coax a “helpful reaction” from Ares.
January 12th, 2009 at 2:24 am
One other observation, Jon…
Ares simply scrapes the article and reposts it verbatim.
That little touch of “ingenuity” will surely cause its own downfall without any involvelment from you!
Right now, this very article is posted.
That can’t possibly be good in any way for Ares.
Maybe the best action is no real action at all!
Save for maybe keeping the knowledge in mind when posting future articles.
; )
January 12th, 2009 at 3:13 am
I have been using the Web of Trust addon for Firefox for a couple of weeks, ever since somebody here recommended it. This “Ares” website is the only website I have tried to access that has a “Dangerous” rating, and there is one comment on the WOT site indicating that this is a fake Ares website.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:35 am
Since they are scraping your stuff, why not put a link in every article back to here? Unless they manually go about altering your material, you have a direct method to claim the source without their doing so. It kills both the lack of credit as well as the possibility of it being a “bait”.
I imagine it will be a bit of time before they discover what you are doing unless it is bait and they betray that by removing the links quickly. If that happens, it is bait. One that someone is monitoring the site here waiting for a response. In hopes the fish will grab the hook with the bait.
If it is not discovered quickly what you are doing then it is just a grab on the net, data moving around as part and parcel. Make use of it and weave site credit into every article.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Ares is apparently just using a RSS reader to repost your stories, hell they even included the one that shows them ripping you off: http://www.ares.net/news/992/Ares_ripping_off_p2pnet.html, I’d do a story on them. The infromation that can be gleaned out of the comments alone should be enough to warn any poor sap who might actually be thinking of using their program.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:10 am
I’ve just used the Ares support form to send them this message >
Please pass the complaint below to Ares management:
I’m the owner of http://www.p2pnet.net, a digital media news site.
Ares is scrapping all of my articles via rss, filtering out my name and re-posting them without my permission, or links to p2pnet as the originator
For details, go here – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/18119
Halt this practice immediately, and tell me what you plan to do by way of an apology.
I’ll be posting the results of this complaint in a follow-up story.
Cheers! (And stay tuned, if you’re interested that is
)
January 12th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
They stopped scraping
January 12th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
They no longer have any of the news stories. But at least they recieved some free advertising from everyone here checking them out lol.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Henry: I am aware that this matter has been resolved at this time but your rhetoric is lost on me I run a filesharing network, I encourage people to download material to their hearts content, I do not have advertising and thus make no gain from this activity, like Jon I will give much of my own material away if its to help others but if its for the purposes of generating revenue my material is not for sale.
Giving someone credit for their work is a decent thing to do, pop folks are by definition given credit on all the networks their music is shared, if anyone was to share their downloads they would at this stage be breaking the law, thus if someone is sharing Jons work outside of the scope of his licence they too are breaking the law, irony is one thing but I dont see any here, I see the law as it stands and nothing you have said changes any of that.
If your suggesting we work outside the law in some fantasy arena of legislation then please say so at the top of each of your posts so I for one can skip the blurb.
I support a major change of IP property law, specifically a reduction in the time allowed for such legal protection and also perhaps a change in the law that precludes “investors” buying up or assigning themselves an artists rights, this underhand and ridiculous concept should not exist, I raise an eyebrow every time we hear how the poor artists are being fleeced when the reality is Cary and co are complaining on behalf of corporate investors who create and produce nothing and take 90% of the cake, that my friend is irony.