I was under the impression that affixing that image to media grants a copyright to the photographer. Does it matter that it is "just" the skyline? Does it only qualify as art if "therealgrogan" says so?

bq. Schwager had no idea who it belonged to or the license behind it.

So the only course of action was to use it?? How entitled sounding is you comment? A normal person would see that since you can't find the owner of the copyright don't fucking use it.

The takedown provision is the absolutely only good thing about the DMCA. I still hate the DMCA, but the take down provisions aren't that bad.

Treasure hunt! Try to find another photo she has that is infringing and get the owner of the copyright to submit another DMCA takedown!

Someone hot linked some photos in a forum board post, so I moved my photo and downloaded a picture of "tubgirl instead". Every single person that when to that forum topic got a big ol' picture of tub girl.

Shouldn't she be angry with GoDaddy or even herself for being stupid about it?

Contacting people on the internet NEVER works. It is a HUGE waste of time. The DMCA move is the proper way to do it. Be pissed at the ISPs if you want to be mad at someone. Or better yet the infringing person. It's not like he was suing the infringing person over using it. Get some perspective.

People were using his photo on commercial websites. What is the problem?

What private details? You mean like public wifi ssids?

Google say they're not evil, in fact.....in fact what?? why invalidate your entire post with something this idiotic?

There is a lot of AC astroturfing going on in this thread.

> If we ignore the biased framing in the summary and article

What bias? Are they trying to charge libraries or not?

So they are making a loud case for changing copyright law? Because that is the only thing that is going to happen if they enforce this.

What loss of sales? Are you only allowed to read books once in Europe? You can't pass them to someone else?

Ignorance may be annoying, but it doesn't mean someone "deserves" any misfortune.

Does that mean that no one deserves fortune either? Or if people deserve things because of actions they take, if someone deserves fortune because they worked hard, doesn't that suggest that the lazy and ignorant deserve misfortune?

> And you know what? IE aside, a HTML renderer of some sort *is* required by Windows-- just as it's required by OS X, most Linux distributions, and Chrome OS

What?? Since when does linux require a HTML renderer? Have you told my netgear router that?