copyright

[chechu]

If money is involved and someone who has copied your material has in any significant way cut into your legitimate revenue, copyright law will likely reward you quite handsomely

Do you believe in this ?

[djr33]

It's not that simple. It's illegal, but so is downloading music.
In the end, it won't actually do that much for you.
If you can prove it in court, have the funds needed for that and have actually incurred enough monetary damage that it's worth it to go to all that trouble, then it would be a good idea.

[tech_support]

Depends on how much money you're talking about.

[djr33]

In most cases involving anyone on this site, I'd say that amount is probably not that high, considering the expense of a lawyer and other court fees.
If it is, sure, then go for it, as I said.

Also consider the complexity of the internet in that not just can tracking someone be very hard, but also that international issues become very tough to actually do anything about. Even in two countries that get along well (say the US and Canada), the mess involved in going through the federal system of both countries would make things tough.

EDIT: I don't think the poll makes any sense. Clearly, you 'should' sue for being paid for your stuff. However, it might not be worth it, or you just might not win.

[boxxertrumps]

No. copyright isn't that good at all, it disallows anyone from doing anything with the material.
CC is much better, there is a degree of control you can maintain, as restrictive or unrestrictive as you want.

[djr33]

Interesting debate there.

I like the current system. It's illegal to steal stuff, but not really enforced, so it kinda all balances out. If you're doing something in a gray area, you'll be ok. (Such as, is frequent with amateur filmmakers, using copyrighted music in a nonprofit film.) But the companies still get money so they have the funds needed to keep making stuff.

Copyright is a complex thing. Though tedious, I bet copyright law would be an interesting area of study.

[jscheuer1]

First of all, to have any real remedy in infringement, you must be able to demonstrate legally that a harm was done. It is possible to be able to do that legally when, in fact no real harm was done or there are mitigating circumstances that render the 'harm' done inconsequential to the 'benefit'. It is also possible to not be able to demonstrate harm when, in fact a 'harm' has occurred.

So, I would say that what one should do depends on the particular circumstances. Oftentimes, simply contacting the party involved and/or their ISP would be all that is required to get the infringement to stop. Other times, it may be impossible, due to jurisdictional difficulties to get any legal recourse, let alone one based upon courtesy. Once again, it depends upon the individual case. If there is a significant financial harm, hiring an lawyer experienced in these matters on a contingency basis might be the best course, if available.

Keeping dated hard copies of original works is a good practice. That way you will have something to show later, to demonstrate ownership, should the need ever arise. With images, never publish the full size, full resolution image on the internet.

[djr33]

Also, cease and desist letters are a frequent means by which professional companies ask websites/individuals to stop hosting (frequently this is the issue) their copyrighted material.
These letters are frequently effective. But they don't have any particular legal backup that I am aware of, since I think it would need to go to court and such anyway.

Perhaps something like that would be available, at least as a first attempt.

This is similar to what John said about just contacting them or the ISP.

[Twey]

No. copyright isn't that good at all, it disallows anyone from doing anything with the material.
CC is much better, there is a degree of control you can maintain, as restrictive or unrestrictive as you want.CC and the GPL are both forms of copyright agreement :) They just have a different purpose to more conventional licenses.

[jscheuer1]

You know, once you have copyright, you get to decide what use you make of it. Having copyright doesn't automatically prevent others from using your stuff, unless you want it to, and even then it isn't entirely automatic. On the other hand, the opposite situation arises when - say a recording artist under contract with an entertainment company must follow that firm's policy as formulated by their legal department.