PDA

View Full Version : DO NOT POST COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL


W.E.G.
July 24, 2010, 10:18
If you wish to refer to copyrighted source material, please post a DESCRIPTION of what the copyrighted material states.

Please do not post actual copyrighted material.

An asshat has recently purchased the right to sue persons and websites that display copyrighted material.
See http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/

None of us can afford this.

Your cooperation is appreciated.

cpd109
July 24, 2010, 12:59
Uh, was that article copyrighted?
Is there a note or something to look for before posting, or just not post anything directly.

W.E.G.
July 24, 2010, 13:40
If the article is authored by somebody who was paid to write the article, you can be sure copyright applies.

W.E.G.
July 24, 2010, 19:28
Similar thing happening on Glocktalk.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1246080

SPEEDGUNNER
July 25, 2010, 09:07
How about this jackass goes out and gets an actual job? Do something productive for society, make a difference, accomplish something, produce a product, employ people, pay taxes, contribute?

Asshat? I say A$$hole.

You can copyright my comments...

feersum dreadnaught
July 26, 2010, 09:58
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/2521-Assaults-On-Forums-Online.html

According to Denninger, the Site is not at risk due to postings by members...

Portion of article excerpted below:

"Righthaven needs to go read Section 512 of the Copyright Act. It specifically provides a "safe harbor" for forum operators.

While the suits against individual posters (bloggers or forum users) who violate copyrights are on their face defensible, going after forum owners is another matter entirely.

That's absolutely over the line, unless there's some colorable claim that the forum owner was notified by someone with standing or actual knowledge that a party at interest is or would be aggrieved in relationship to SPECIFIC, IDENTIFIED works and ignored the notice - and as far as I can tell from what's been posted thus far in the various areas, that's not the case.

(Note that the holder of a Copyright has the right, but not the obligation, to object to someone else copying his material. He may not object at all - depending on the context of the copying he may see it as either neutral or even beneficial to his interests. That's the rights-holder's sole privilege to determine for him or herself, and unlike with a Trademark a Copyright is not "enforce it against all violators or lose it." He can and often DOES situationally permit copying.)

The DMCA's Section 512 was put into Statute to fix what had up until then been nothing more than case law - that is, to codify and amplify what had been commonly understood as "expected practice" and the limits of provider liability among the Courts. It extended to a reasonable extent what was often called (erroneously so at that) "Common Carrier" protections. As a professional who has been in this business in one form or another since the mid 1980s, I'm well-aware of both history and practice in these matters.

The DMCA, contrary to many detractors, was a major step forward for service providers. It brought into cold statutory reality protections that until that time had existed only in case law. While it is not perfect protection by any means, if a service provider acts reasonably and comports with certain black-letter specific requirements, he or she is afforded a "Safe Harbor" from suits by copyright holders.

Youtube, incidentally, won on this basis, and that decision appears to utterly decimate any chance that Rightmedia may have to prevail against forum operators. Specifically, the ruling held:

The tenor of the foregoing provisions is that the phrases “actual knowledge that the material or an activity” is infringing, and “facts or circumstances” indicating infringing activity, describe knowledge of specific and identifiable infringements of particular individual items. Mere knowledge of prevalence of such activity in general is not enough. That is consistent with an area of the law devoted to protection of distinctive individual works, not of libraries. To let knowledge of a generalized practice of infringement in the industry, or of a proclivity of users to post infringing materials, impose responsibility on service providers to discover which of their users’ postings infringe a copyright would contravene the structure and operation of the DMCA."

W.E.G.
July 26, 2010, 10:10
Right.

Leave out the copyrighted material here anyway.

Well... unless you want to send me $100K to hold in escrow to pay for our defense when some asshat decides his interpretation of the law differs.

Post a description.
Post a link.

DO NOT POST COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL ON THIS SITE.

For anybody who doesn't get it, I know how to fix the problem on a case-by-case basis.