Too many Rips on winamp skins.

[ebjcoat]

I think nullsoft should remove every rip from the skins section.

(for people who don't know what a rip is, A rip is a pice of someones work altered and used without permission of the original artist)

What do you think about rips?:)

[fish]

Do a good deed today and post it here (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?threadid=24572). :)

There are huge actions being made here to get rid of these rips, and I think almost everyone here ould agree with you that this is something that should be stopped.

Thank You :)

[punk_911]

Com'on !

Not like it's a skin contest where u win some prize, can't u guys see that it's just about making a skin that u like, and then share it with others.

I RIP skins to my own specs, and it turns out nice so I thought other would like to use it. I don't seee anything wrong with that period !

[fish]

A rip is a rip and a rip is wrong :)

Do you even acknowledge the original creator of the skin in your wrongdoings????

[Arvenius]

hm
maybe you should include a license to your skins? so you have a legal base if someone rips your skin? as far as i can see, there is nothing you can do if u dont tell ppl that they may NOT use your graphics...
apart from that, i dont think every rip is bad, some look even better than the original, but it should have the agree from the author (hell, send him a mail) before publishing it...

[punk_911]

Should I aknowledge on the skin, or on dah web, or in the wiseword.txt ? :)


RIP = Recycle Interesting Part so there u go :)

[fish]

I dunno. You should probably ask the skinning gurus in Share your Skin Love (http://forums.winamp.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=5). :)

[dlinkwit27]

I think there is a mis-understand here. I think all of us would agree that changing a skin to suit your own taste is OK, but publishing it under your name is what is making people mad. Am I right?

[fish]

you're 100% right (by my beliefs - and most of the skinning community...)

=)

[BigFella]

Let me first state that I'm a programmer who works for a database company. I have no connection to the music industry what-so-ever other than I listen to it (music, not the industry) regularly.

I don't understand why some folks think it's ok to copy music that folks have spent hundreds or thousands of man/hours on, in addition to the creative/artistic energy in producing. Copying in which is truly a blatent "rip" with nothing added, other than perhaps some id3 information.

Yet we are up-in-arms about folks taking a freely distributed skin, making some "creative" modification to it and redistributing it along with a nod to the original creator.

One group of folks are just folks exercising their God given and Constitutionally guaranteed right to free expression by copying music, the other group are scumbags who deserved no less than the ultimate "speedball" with McVey.

Isn't this a double standard, or am I missing something?

...kt

[s1138]

ive edited the base skin to a blue color. cause most of my desktop is blue. im not gonna publish it. i like how it looks, and it is for private use.

IF you edit a skin and publish it in your name, it is wrong.

[dlinkwit27]

You are completely missing the point of this whole topic. To put it in terms you may understand, I will explain the topic as this:

The community here is angry about people taking others skins, and chingin' a minor thing [i.e., titlebar] and claiming it is a whole new skin, and taking [or trying to] credit for it. Basicly, this would be the same as me taking...idk...Weezer's song "Hashpipe," [lyrics, notes, ect.] changing the title to "Hemp-pipe," change "hashpipe" to "hemp-pipe" in the lyrics, and declairing that I have written a whole new song. Now wouldn't you agree that that is wrong?

As with "copying" songs, we are in no way saying that we are the creator of that song[s], nor are we chaning the content of the song.

Do you now understand?

[BigFella]

Ohhhh, I see now, so even though we implicitly agree to the terms of the copyright for the music we buy, and even though the artist is due some remuneration for the work he's put into producing the songs, it's alright because we're only *copying* and *distributing* it, not trying to take credit for it like those low lifed skanks who are perpetrating a fraud on all of us who spend up to a minute and a half out of our busy schedules downloading a purely cosmetic addon.

Hmmm...come to think of it...I think I understood that from the beginning ;-)

If the arguement is *really* about someone taking credit for work they didn't create, why then would it not be enough for the ripper to simply acknowledge the work from which he based his work?

[dlinkwit27]

<<Ohhhh, I see now, so even though we implicitly agree to the terms of the copyright for the music we buy, and even though the artist is due some remuneration for the work he's put into producing the songs, it's alright because we're only *copying* and *distributing* it, not trying to take credit for it like those low lifed skanks who are perpetrating a fraud on all of us who spend up to a minute and a half out of our busy schedules downloading a purely cosmetic addon.>>

that is pretty much right. no change, no name-change claim, no foul.

<<If the arguement is *really* about someone taking credit for work they didn't create, why then would it not be enough for the ripper to simply acknowledge the work from which he based his work?>>

that is all we ask.

[BigFella]

I have a better idea of what the arguement is now. I think if origination credit is all that you're seeking, then I think that's a reasonable enough request to make (not that anybody asked ;-)

Thanks for your replies, they've cleard things up significantly.

...kt

[dlinkwit27]

I'm glad we got everything cleared up. Please talkin to ya.

D LiNK

[Namelessv1]

Well, as phisherman would put it, im one of those skin love "gurus", and to say ripping without recognition, or just plain ripping isnt wrong is pure crap. If u(punk_911) had bothered to open the .zip file for most skins and actually read the readme file, u would see there is a "license" that states that the skin cannot be ripped and published. :D Just about every experienced skinner includes that.

[Linkster72]

I think that rips on skins are fine, as long as they are published under the original artist with credit to the alterer, not the other way around. They should be listed with all the changes that have been made to the skin and a link to where people can get the original skin if they want to.

[and1k]

Originally posted by s1138
ive edited the base skin to a blue color. cause most of my desktop is blue. im not gonna publish it. i like how it looks, and it is for private use.

3 points:

1) i agree with almost everything i read, inasmuch that people who rip skins should credit the original author.

2) What is a rip, anyway? i use the original text from an old base skin, is that a rip?

3) s1139: blue base skin? this i have to see. could you mail it to me?

(as any admin should know, there's an e-mail logo just below here.
|

[and1k]

Originally posted by s1138
ive edited the base skin to a blue color. cause most of my desktop is blue. im not gonna publish it. i like how it looks, and it is for private use.

3 points:

1) i agree with almost everything i read, inasmuch that people who rip skins should credit the original author.

2) What is a rip, anyway? i use the original text from an old base skin, is that a rip?

3) s1139: blue base skin? this i have to see. could you mail it to me?

(as any admin should know, there's an e-mail logo just below.)