|
* yawn *
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't really work here
Lets say I use some images for a gallery. A content provider contacts me and says "Your images are stolen". If I don't provide a license for my content to prove that I own it, or I refuse to provide a license as eru is doing, then the content is considered unlicensed.
I know that the content isn't available for license because nowhere sells it. Same as someone using Playboy content, you know it is unlicensed because nobody sells it.
So far eru hasn't given a license or info from his content provider. Just the same as if I upload some pics from playboy.com - - if I can't give a license for those pics, then they're stolen. No license or content provider info from eru yet.
It works on the same principal here. The only way that you can PROVE to other people that content is stolen, is when the webmaster in question refuses to provide a license or can't do it.
Content providers care to comment???
Take unseenworld as an example. the bulldog has some unseen world pics on one of his sites. unseen emails bulldog and says "your content is stolen". if bulldog can't provide a license to show unseen, then bulldog's content is stolen. is it really so hard to understand.
Content provider contacts YOU. YOU have no license for content. So YOUR content must be stolen.
just like a guy using playboy content, eru doesn't have a license because that kind of content isn't available for licensing. if it is, prove it. post the address of the provider. otherwise shut up. i know the provider doesn't exist just like the provider for playboy content doesn't exist.
|