When on the Internet, people begin to be responsible for their actions?

This question is asked to everyone who has his own resources on the Internet, on which his own works are placed (original content).
I began to ask myself a similar question from the beginning of 2006, when clones of my works began to appear on the net.

The first clone was the menu (which I made for the first version of the portfolio) on the site of one DJ-I, who stole the ALL menu in the most arrogant way, without even bothering to change (the flashers will understand me) neither the color of the masks, nor the work algorithm, nor even the bugs. In the future, the incident was resolved quite peacefully - by adding my copyright and links to the site.

Then there were several more similar clones of works from my blog, but, to be honest, I didn’t want to understand, because the attendance of those resources was insanely small, and there was no strength for the proceedings — the summer!

The year 2007 presented an absolutely amazing (for me) surprise.
')
March, 3rd. About six o'clock in the evening.
In ICQ a certain citizen Nikita knocked. On the move, he suggested that I change the design of my work Radio . Moreover, at that time it was already published on its website! There were no copyrights, but both the video itself and a piece of my explanation for it were completely torn out. After my warning, everything was removed. But not for long.

March, 3rd. About seven o'clock in the evening.
Again the same Nikita knocked, but this time he suggested that I change the design for money (well done, this is good ...). But after the said sum, he immediately refused (ches word, the amount is trivial - 50u.e.). Further, I offered to pay "advertising" (thanks!). I stopped responding. Well, really, what's the point of continuing to bicker. Said "No," means "No."

March 4th. Morning.
I decided to just ask how Mr. Nikita kept his word. I went to his site. Oops! My work is again in place, but this time there is my copyright (on the right, a small one, mixed with an ad unit). To my official letter asking to remove my work from this site, until no response has been received. That's it.

But let's not just talk about sad things. In July 2006, my colleague, Maria Pleshkova, won (although they agreed on the world, but the money she paid) a trial with one magazine , which, without her permission, gave out one of her photos. Here is what she says herself:

Yesterday my lawsuit finally ended with a single publishing house, which illegally published my photo without consent. The trial was a long one, but the Court was pleased, satisfied the claims to a considerable extent, and even moral damage was awarded. To whom it is interesting, write, share documents and answer questions, the name of the publisher will only shut up.

07/06/2006 11:38:27 | club.foto.ru/forum/view_topic.php?topic_id=216474

Especially for those who “scratch their hands,” Dmitry Ryabykh on his website (link at the end of the page) describes 3 most frequent myths that are mistakenly guided when stealing:

Myth number 1. Published material can be used in any way, because It is intended for free access.

In the same way, you can freely access radio broadcasts or TV shows, take a book from the library, etc. The Internet did not change anything in the principles of publication of materials; it only simplified copying of published materials.

Myth number 2. To use materials on a non-commercial basis, no permits are required, we do not derive any benefit from this.

First, of course, you benefit, even indirectly. Someone attracts the attention of published materials, someone creates thus an advertising platform for future income generation, someone pursues other goals, but in all cases the publications that you used help them to achieve these goals. Secondly, illegally using the publication, you cause damage to its author. And then it does not matter if its damage turned into your profit.

Myth number 3. On the Internet, nothing can be proved, your violations will go unpunished.

It is not much more difficult to prove in court the fact of illegal copying of information from a website than when working with printed sources. Another thing is that in most cases they do not do this because of the complexity of the judicial procedure and the small amount of damage. But you should never forget about other ways to protect authors who are not related to the courts. The damage that your reputation will suffer, and perhaps not only the reputation, can repeatedly cut off the benefits of illegal publications.

To be continued…

Related Links:
Copyright.ru
Dmitry Ryabykh
Sergey Stepanov
Legal advice online. Copyright

References for comparison:
metoart.ru/blog/2006/11/23/radio_radio - the original.
www.videozvuk.com/index.php?categoryid=25&p2_articleid=621

If the work is deleted in case of publication, here is a screenshot