Po' Smedley's Life And Brain Drippings

Today on Wincustomize, a fellow skinner brought to the attention of other skinners something interesting and of importance to a lot of graphic artists, wallpaper designers, and skinners in general. It was that Softpedia posts any one’s work that they want to before getting permission from the author and even if they can not contact the author to get permission.

The skinner had received an email informing him that his work had ‘already’ been posted. He shared it in the WC forum for others to see. When other artists began looking, they found their own work posted on Softpedia but some or most had never received any notification at all. None. Nadda.

So, one of these other skinners emails Softpedia about the work they posted that belongs to this particular skinner. The skinner then shared Softpedia’s response in the forum.

“Hello,
          We were unable to contact you, because we didn't find an email address. It's company policy to inform all producers when we publish their work in order to avoid misunderstandings such as this one. Anyway, would you like to completely remove your listings or just the links from our servers?
Sorry for any inconvenience
Have a good day!

Best regards,
Stefan Fintea
mailto:stefan@softpedia.com
Softpedia Senior IT Manager
http://www.softpedia.com
Join the Softpedia group on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2366085
 

There stance being that if they can’t contact the author or ‘producer’, they will just go ahead and post the work any way. To hell with respecting any ones intellectual property.

As a skinner who has spent hours, weeks, and sometimes months on just one project and then chose where it was posted because it’s my right to control where and how it is downloaded, it truly burns my butt that Softpedia taked the approach that they do. And it gets even better.

The person who sent the email to the skinner, Stefan Fintea (Senior IT Manager for Softpedia) then joined the forum discussion.

 “Softpedia does not exploit anyone's work. We respect our producers, we give them credit for their work,
  links to their homepage/websites and we award the ones who deserve it.”

Keep in mind, the work gets posted before the artist can respond or even if they don’t. It’s posted even if they can not contact the artist.

 “We don't like the idea of going around their/your back, that's why we search for each producer's email.”

He doesn’t state if the search for the ‘producers’ email takes place before or after they post the ‘producers’ work.

  “If we do find it, they receive a notification message.”

If they don’t find it, they post the work any way!

“The idea behind this email is simple: the producer gets notified each time his worked goes online at Softpedia, he can see if the listing meets his requirements and acknowledges his wish to have that item on Softpedia.”

Again, he leaves out what they do with the work when they have no way to contact the author OR if the author never responds. Then goes further by insinuating it was the authors ‘wish’ to begin with to have their work posted on Softpedia.

He goes on to say should you be one of the unsuspecting authors who discovers your work has been posted on Softpedia without permission a simple email will resolve the situation. It would almost have to, because at that point ignorance is no longer bliss and they are forced to admit they DID go behind your back and stole your intellectual property and posted it without your consent. They don’t even have an email to say they tried to reach you in some cases.

But it gets better…..

“So, if anyone feels that having their work published and awarded on one of the biggest and most respected download portals is not in their benefit or puts them in a bad light, an email we'll easily solve the problem, “

Isn’t this the kind of attitude that cost Microsoft billions in Europe? It’s not the thief, but class of thief and you should be grateful that Softpedia wants to rape you of your hard work and devotion to promote their website and service.

The response from Softpedias Senior IT Manager set me off. I responded using the ‘F’ word in more than a few choice places. I referred to Softpedias download portal as a toilet since I felt they were all about accumulating the most sh*t. Mr. Fintea was to say..

“That's your opinion and I respect it. But if you think we're the bad guys, we're the worst download portal in the world, I think there are hunderds of download websites out there that never notify producers when they pubish their work, they don't check those programs for viruses, they don't install them and take screenshots, they never answer your emails and sure as hell don't care about what you want, not to mention replying on a third-party forum like I'm doing right now..”

The lesser of two evils. And because he took the time to admit it, all should be right with the world. Because they check the work they steal for viruses, they are better. Because when they get ‘caught’ stealing someone’s work to post on their site (and I don’t care if it’s ‘linked’ or not, it’s theft! If I wanted it on Softpedia I would try to post it there) and respond to the author, they are better. “Your honor, I only took the best stuff “ “Your honor, when they caught me, I offered to put it back.”

In the midst of all this, a few things crossed my mind. (Other than images of this guy being pummeled with athletic socks stuffed with bars of Zest until he was peeing brain matter in his jockeys) This guy is the ‘SENIOR IT MANAGER’ for Softpedia and he also has to be a member at WC to post in the forum. A click later and I see he has been a member for over a year! How could a senior IT manager from any where not know his way around the web or enough about it to not know any better than to do what they are doing? AND how could he be a member of WC for over a year and and say they could not find a way to contact ANY of the artists there? There are forums! All the members can receive Private Messages! Most have email links on their personal pages!

My next colorfully worded response addressed all of this. His response was …

“Misinterpretation 1: I'm a member because a while back I had a question to ask and needed an account to post it. Haven't used this account since then, because I'm not a frequent user of WC.
Misinterpretation 2: The content on Softpedia was not posted by me, as you can see I'm not an editor, so my membership is, once again, not relevant.
Misinterpretation 3: I've answered to her letter because I'm one of the people who offer users feedback when they have a problem, not WC users in particular.”

He admits he is familiar with the site and how it works and how the forums work. SO he is capable of contacting or posting to any artist he wants in the forums.. He excuses himself because he is NOT an editor for Softpedia and did not post the work..THEN…says he is “one of the people who offers users feedback when they have a problem”.

After I point out that the skinner in question probably was NOT a ‘USER’ until they stole their work and posted it WITHOUT permission and forced them to contact them…I say he’s full of…uh..something or other.

A random thought -*Softpedia….is your Senior IT Manager just spitting out a form letter you all have ready to send for these violations of intellectual property and copyright or does this dork-wad speak for Softpedia??? How can someone get that title and be so ignorant and so nonchalant about the blatant disregard they or Softpedia has for other peoples work?

I kept waiting for this guy to see that he might be wrong, but he obviously was holding to Softpedias stance of ‘we are THAT big so screw you’.

You may or my not agree with me that Softpedia is in the wrong here. The fine legalities of it could probably be debated for years. However, I do feel strongly that Softpedia, as one of the ‘biggest and most respected download portals’ should be more responsible about how they acquire their content. They don’t even link to the download but offer ‘direct download’ of the work from THEIR site.

Quoting a very wise member of WC who was involved in the thread…

..” The situation we have here …..that the author/owner of the work uploads his/her content to the site and retains physical access and control of that work when or if it is his/her decision to remove or alter it.  Such is not the case with Softpedia as the occasion clearly has arisen where owners are actually oblivious to the unauthorised redistribution.”

The icing on the cake for all of this would have to be Softpedias copyright page.

“Softpedia Online Content Copyright Information
The following applies to all content published by Softpedia via electronic means, such as Internet websites, email messages and so on, hereinafter referred to as CONTENT.
Most of the CONTENT is original, created by Softpedia staff and is protected by copyright laws. Any reproduction of these works, without Softpedia's written consent, is strictly prohibited and will be punished according to the laws in effect.”

Do you laugh or cry?

To quote the wise man again…because I couldn’t put it any better…

“The issue with an individual's property rights is that he MUST vigorously defend those rights at any and every opportunity....because....if at one time he says 'I don't care'...or shows no interest in their protection the horse has bolted for any future attempt at protection.  A subsequent 'abuser' can point to the prior indifference as what we call in the architecture game as 'first intrusion' [when a block of flats is hard to reject when a precedent was already set by - the first intrusion [block built]].

People need to keep a firm grip on their stable door.

If YOU do not care about your property rights then rest assured....no-one else will, either.”

So, please. If you are a fellow skinner, artist, graphics designer…OR someone who just downloads the afore mentioned and respects the time, talent, and love that goes into the art….and you want Softpedia to know that they need to stop and respect the artist or ‘producer’ as they put it…do it now. Email them. Link this post. Tweet it. And spread the word.

Original forum thread can be found on Wincutomize with the link below. Please excuse my ‘language’ should you read it. I have always believed the first person to snap and start ‘cursing’ loses the argument. I hope you can see past that and I haven’t necessarily lost this one.

P.S. Softpedia….with the economy as bad as it is, I know how you might save a few thousand dollars a year. Stop posting others work before getting or without permission! Then you can eliminate the person who has to field all the complaints from violated skinners. Say, for instance, eliminate the Senior IT Manager.

 


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Oct 28, 2009

Softpedia is simply unaware of International Copyright Law and how it pertains to the Graphic art industry, online and/or otherwise.

Oh, they are aware of it to be sure, they just have people that don't really care about it and they live in a country where copyright laws regarding digital content don't exist, along with other sites like Brothersoft.com who does the same thing. 

on Oct 28, 2009

Oh, they are aware of it to be sure, they just have people that don't really care about it and they live in a country where copyright laws regarding digital content don't exist,

This is one of the most frustrating things concerning this issue. It's an uphill battle all the way.

 

I thought it would be interesting to post the article in Softpedias forum.

 

If anyone wants to post it any where else YOU HAVE MY PERMSSION. I have posted it here, DA, SA, my Live Blog, and SOftpedias forum. Get the word out. On a real long shot, I sent it in as a tip to Lifehacker since they promote so many artists from DA and other sites.. Don't know if they will find the quality good enough, but it's worth a shot.

on Oct 28, 2009

Not surprisingly, Softpediea has deleted your post, Po

on Oct 28, 2009

LOL... it's not just limited to artists work. You can also download MyColors_setup.exe and DeskScapes_public.exe from their mirrors.

on Oct 28, 2009

LOL... it's not just limited to artists work. You can also download MyColors_setup.exe and DeskScapes_public.exe from their mirrors.

Just no end to their respect for others' property, eh?

on Oct 28, 2009

LOL... it's not just limited to artists work. You can also download MyColors_setup.exe and DeskScapes_public.exe from their mirrors.

Methinks that Stardock may get personally involved here

on Oct 28, 2009

LOL... it's not just limited to artists work. You can also download MyColors_setup.exe and DeskScapes_public.exe from their mirrors.

Softpedia is a download site for software, we know they are posting there.

on Oct 28, 2009

Would it be a bad idea for me to repost the article on the softpedia board?

on Oct 28, 2009

Softpedia is a download site for software, we know they are posting there.

ok then

on Oct 28, 2009

 

Softpedia obvoiusly downloaded the CONTENT from WC and other skinning sites and hosted it.

Not obvious enough since I asked.

Downloaded it from Wincustomize and posted it to their own site for direct download.

I asked because of this comments you posted on the article by the Softpadia Rep:

Then goes further by insinuating it was the authors ‘wish’ to begin with to have their work posted on Softpedia.

By this it would insinuate that the author was in contact with Softpedia somehow (registered or something). This is why I asked and basically the reason for the questions that followed. What confuses me the most is this comment:

 “Softpedia does not exploit anyone's work. We respect our producers, we give them credit for their work,
  links to their homepage/websites and we award the ones who deserve it.”

This is very misleading as it seems to indicate they have some kind of connection with the author of the product but as you pointed out they are simply downloading it from one site and posting it on another. Wouldn't that be considered wrong, kinda like me putting a direct download option on my website for, say, one of Stardocks products as oppose to putting a link to the Stardock download page? Why would they think theres nothing wrong with this and how can they possible claim not to be going behind the authors when they do such a thing, without notifying them before, after or at all?

Claimed they could not find an email address to contact the skinner. Though they could have used WC's PM or forums to contact them if they really wanted to.

I agree, "trying" can be a subjective word. They didn't really try to, they just looked, didn't see and claimed not to be able to find it. Shame on them, they need to be called on this.

 

 

on Oct 28, 2009

Not surprisingly, Softpediea has deleted your post, Po

I'm crushed.

Softpedia is a download site for software, we know they are posting there.

If they can't respect the artists here, Stardock should step in and ask them to pull any STardock stuff. Yeah, I realize that is probably asking a lot and someone may reply with a bunch of legaleeze or fancy talk on why that wouldn't help or be pointless or what have you...but I think the perception that Stardock is behind the artists on this would go a long way. As individuals with limited resources we can't make the noise or statement that Stardock could if they threw their support behind us.

I'd hate to think that Softpedias Senior IT Manager was right  and SOftpedia is THAT big and respected that STardock couldn't afford to say 'do the right thing or we'll ask that you remove all Stardock products.'

on Oct 31, 2009

There are different degrees of 'doing wrong' when it comes to a person's Intellectual Property [IP].

Some sites try 'data-mining' or hot-linking to a download...so their site gets whatever Kudos...and the original site pays the bandwidth.

That system is unacceptable to the site owner [naturally].

Then there is the type who accesses your site...downloads the content....and then re-hosts it on their own site.

This is worse - for the IP owner as he is typically unaware his IP is accessible elsewhere AND out of his control.

IF the IP owner is credited it at least lessens the insult, because worse still is the situation where the taker hosts the IP as if it was his own...naming it as such.

Then...at the 'lower' end of IP theft/insult is Softpedia.  They link to the source page [eg here at Wincustomize] so IP 'naming'/authorship is at least intact, and they argue that they at least 'try' to contact the IP owner.

Where Softpedia goes to crap is that they do it AFTER THE FACT, not before.

Taking...and then later asking is still THEFT.

Get it right.

1. ASK.

2. Receive an answer.

3. Act on the IP owner's response.

Yes, it is as simple as ONE TWO THREE.

on Oct 31, 2009

Now, to assist all those skinners/members out there that may have had their IP 'pirated' by Softpedia, I'll post here a slightly revised version of what Stardock uses when contacting sites playing free and easy with Stardock's IP.

As I've mentioned before....one of the necessary skills for an artist is not 'just' being able to hold a paintbrush [whatever] it is also having an understanding of how to go about protecting what is his.

This 'skill' is to take on the role of polite communicator, to clearly and precisely forward your request for action or voice your displeasure with the status quo....without resorting to invective or expletive.

There is a 'thing' called the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA] which can be quoted and linked-to when forwarding a request for IP removal.

Formal documentation such as this MUST be both polite AND genuine.  Included information MUST be accurate, and that includes names and contact details.

So, below is a form letter which anyone can use.... filling in the blanks.

You'd probably be surprised how often these issues are resolved positively....

 

 

on Oct 31, 2009

Joe Skinner

Joe P. Citizen

123 Fourth Street, Wherever 9999

31/10/2009

DMCA Removal Notice:

 

Please accept this as a request to remove the following unauthorized versions my intellectual property in keeping with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which can be found at http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

1) I am the owner of the intellectual property  whose rights are being infringed and I am authorized to act on my own behalf.

2) My contact information and electronic signature are below.

3) The infringing materials can be found at the following Softpedia location(s):

 

FILL IN THE BLANKS

 

4) The materials are my exclusive intellectual property and may not be redistributed without my permission.

5) I have a good faith belief that "use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agents, or the law."

6) The information above is accurate to the best of my knowledge under penalty of perjury.

7) My electronic signature is below.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any further information. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

SKINNER’S NAME

Email Address

on Oct 31, 2009

That's something which should be made a 'sticky'. Jafo.

3 Pages1 2 3