New "free art" website

[shirikdraguinea.livejournal.com]

IMPORTANT EDIT
Just had this comment via FA from one of my watchers:
Major alert - shortly after following that link, my google account has been hijacked and has been mass spammng. I have d/c'ed from the internet (using phone atm), and am virus scanning. Be VERY careful, or avoid altogether.
If anyone thinks they got something nasty I'm really sorry - try running HouseCall ( http://housecall.trendmicro.com/ ) - its an online based virus scanner so it can't be affected by anything on your system. I had no negative consequences from visiting this website but some others have - if you have been affected I am incredibly sorry :(


A friend of mine recently alerted me to yet another art theft rich art site - Never To Much Yiff. You can see it advertised at the owners FurAffinity page and he states:

"You can download and archive of 11,745 sorted by artist. I am not selling it is free to download so enjoy and please donate 2$ every 5$ goes to animal shelter of my choice"
(I took some liberty with this quote... the typos on the picture made me cry).

So in a nutshell, this person Techie9098 is putting up work by other artists without permission, and charging "donation" for them. I haven't checked the artists affected by this though as it requires downloading a torrent with all of these files.

Just a heads up for people.

EDIT:

His main page has been replaced by a Caramelldansen video but the download link remains and the torrent is still on pirate bay.

Comments

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

I really don't care if you believe me or not (though it's telling that you still haven't answered as to your own learnings, when you demand so much from me, but then dismiss my answer so easily), but let me just go grab one of my books... let's see "copyright in Historical Perspective" by Lyman Ray Patterson. This is known to be one of the most comprehensive texts on early copyright. Let's see what Mr. Patterson has to say on page 20, "when William Caxton introduced the printing press into England in 1476, the creation of a new form of property, eventually to be called copyright, was inevitable. The new property concept developed over some two hundred years..."

The Statute of Anne is well known and many consider it as the beginning of MODERN day copyright, but copyright was actually in development long before it, which is why the chapter on the Statute comes in the middle of the book and not the beginning. Your knowledge of copyright really has the feel of someone who only wikis things when they need to for an argument. You don't seem to grasp a lot of copyright discussion as a whole, you just pick and chose from sites off the net, then pretend like you're well versed in the subject. I know I'm no expert, but I at least know enough about copyright to know how overwhelming and extensive the subject is. That you claim to have vast knowledge of it, then fumble even with basic concepts suggests you don't even know enough to realize how little you know.

You can have the last word on this thread too. You seemed to revel in it all the other times I've let you have it, so go nuts.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

So because I won't get into a e-penis waving contest with you that makes you right be default? No, child. It simply means that without evidence claims don't prove anything and as I said, being well read and actually understanding what you've read are not the same thing.

No child, it simply means that a set of licensing laws whereby government licensed people's own work to them isn't the same as a copyright law which simply asserts that your stuff is your stuff. A licensing law is not a copyright law, ergo copyright law did not exist until the first law was created that was roughly analogous to the term copyright.

Again, just because you make a claim doesn't make it true, fact is you are woefully uninformed, lacking in social graces or perception and worse ignorant to both those issues.