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.

Please pass the complaint below to Ares management:

I’ll be posting the results of this complaint in a follow-up story.

Cheers! (And stay tuned, if you’re interested that is )

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.

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.
; )

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.

Seek compensation and lost of advertizing revenue and losss of reader ship and loss of hits.

SUE EM LIKE that wayne crooks guys.

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?

The Above link is a really good explanation of what I think you’re trying to say here, Jon.

No worries.

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.

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.

Cheers!

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.

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!

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?