Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Please read the rules before posting

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby gyrfalcon on Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:51 pm

GeekyGunman wrote:The issue at hand is the verbatim copy and paste re-posting of articles, which is basically full on copyright infringement.
The only truly scary/unfair part of this, is that DMCA safe harbor laws don't apply unless you have specifically designated and registered a contact...It's at least an unintended side-effect, because usually it's not worth suing the small fry.


It's too simple to suggest that the only issue at hand is copyright infringement. Copyright law has failed to keep up with technology and is now stifling the sharing of information to the detriment of society. Whatever stance you take there is a war going on regarding copyright and intellectual property.

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
gyrfalcon
 
Posts: 3467 [View]
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby GeekyGunman on Mon Sep 27, 2010 11:58 pm

gyrfalcon wrote:It's too simple to suggest that the only issue at hand is copyright infringement. Copyright law has failed to keep up with technology and is now stifling the sharing of information to the detriment of society. Whatever stance you take there is a war going on regarding copyright and intellectual property.

Oh absolutely, but it's currently being waged more with regard to how things you purchase can be used (DRM), fair use, frivolous patents, and the length that copyrighted materiel stays copyrighted.
These points I expect to see the laws change in the next decade or so.

Direct and wholesale copying of a text (like a news article or book) is really not in the forefront right now. Maybe eventually, but the people at the front are wisely picking their battles.
Also, very few support the idea of completely dismantling copyright. I suspect that even with better laws in place, full reposting of text will still be illegal.

In the meantime, this is pretty solid law. It's not your text, you don't get to reuse it in a public setting wherever you feel like.


**
As before, what seems more interesting (and also ridiculous and unfair) is that forum operators can't apply for safe harbor because they didn't list themselves on a special list.
GeekyGunman
 
Posts: 167 [View]
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 5:35 pm
Location: Midway

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby ijosef on Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:08 am

I've already seen this crop up at a few other forums I visit. It's sad, but understandable given today's climate.
ijosef
 
Posts: 883 [View]
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby Pitel on Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:43 am

Thanks for the explanations. I can understand the value in protecting one's intellectual property as I have been many times in protecting my companies IP. I own it, and I get to say who uses it whether it be free or for compensation.

HOWEVER,

I hate attorneys like this because they are just extortionist's. I would certainly hope people can ban together and actually take one of these cases to a jury trial. I am sure they would change their "business strategy" then.
User avatar
Pitel
 
Posts: 87 [View]
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: Rogers,mn

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby xd ED on Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:45 am

I agree that it's a matter of property ownership rights to say when and where it's used. But, given the practice of encouraging sharing, as it's been pointed out some of these 'victims' have done, and the fact that there needs to be damages shown, I don't see this as bootlegging software, or scanning and posting Vince Flynn's latest work. But then again, IANAL
LET'S GO BRANDON
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9016 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby Pitel on Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:58 am

xd ED wrote:I agree that it's a matter of property ownership rights to say when and where it's used. But, given the practice of encouraging sharing, as it's been pointed out some of these 'victims' have done, and the fact that there needs to be damages shown, I don't see this as bootlegging software, or scanning and posting Vince Flynn's latest work. But then again, IANAL


I agree. It would be interesting to see what the "damages" are and besides, if the article in on line and does not cost a fee to view it, isn't it then considered in the public domain? Seems to me they have a tough case however, they probably don't care about a trial, just the fear tactic and lesser of the financial evil.
User avatar
Pitel
 
Posts: 87 [View]
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: Rogers,mn

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby RobD on Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:53 am

Pitel wrote:
xd ED wrote:I agree that it's a matter of property ownership rights to say when and where it's used. But, given the practice of encouraging sharing, as it's been pointed out some of these 'victims' have done, and the fact that there needs to be damages shown, I don't see this as bootlegging software, or scanning and posting Vince Flynn's latest work. But then again, IANAL


I agree. It would be interesting to see what the "damages" are and besides, if the article in on line and does not cost a fee to view it, isn't it then considered in the public domain? Seems to me they have a tough case however, they probably don't care about a trial, just the fear tactic and lesser of the financial evil.


It does not look like any of the suits have gone to trial yet. Many of the litigants are just throwing a few grand at Righthaven to settle and make the problem go away.

I'm hoping someone has the money and balls to go to Vegas and make them prove any damages and any attempts they made to attempt to mitigate their "losses", such as a take-down notice... (which no-one has received)
Political Director - MN Gun Owners Caucus/PAC
NRA Instructor (BP, PPITH, PPOTH, Reloading, RSO)
Certified Glock Armorer - Permit to Carry Instructor - Aegis Outdoors
User avatar
RobD
 
Posts: 2846 [View]
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:22 pm
Location: Metro

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby Pitel on Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:58 am

For extortionist's like that, I would just continue to let them pursue. If none have gone to trial (and that can be verified) then any effort you put towards it would be a waste of time any money. It costs them a fair amount of dough to go to trial also. If their "model" is to threaten into a settlement, I would just send them the "FU" letter (and I have before) and see them at trial.

But that's me............
User avatar
Pitel
 
Posts: 87 [View]
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:37 pm
Location: Rogers,mn

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby RobD on Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:03 am

Pitel wrote:For extortionist's like that, I would just continue to let them pursue. If none have gone to trial (and that can be verified) then any effort you put towards it would be a waste of time any money. It costs them a fair amount of dough to go to trial also. If their "model" is to threaten into a settlement, I would just send them the "FU" letter (and I have before) and see them at trial.

But that's me............


I agree with your spirit, but most forum/blog owners do not have the capital to miss work for an indeterminate amount of time, travel to vegas (with or without a lawyer) to defend charges, no matter how frivolous. And unfortunately, Righthaven is banking on that.
Political Director - MN Gun Owners Caucus/PAC
NRA Instructor (BP, PPITH, PPOTH, Reloading, RSO)
Certified Glock Armorer - Permit to Carry Instructor - Aegis Outdoors
User avatar
RobD
 
Posts: 2846 [View]
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 8:22 pm
Location: Metro

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:25 am

RobD wrote:I agree with your spirit, but most forum/blog owners do not have the capital to miss work for an indeterminate amount of time, travel to vegas (with or without a lawyer) to defend charges, no matter how frivolous. And unfortunately, Righthaven is banking on that.


Righthaven is filing frivolous lawsuits in the attempt to get settlements. While I'm not you, I wouldn't worry much about a lawsuit that may not be valid and could lack the jurisdiction to be enforced. Has this forum even been served yet? There are a lot of steps between being named in a lawsuit and actually having a default judgment carried out against you. You can fight a lawsuit without lawyers and flying to other states just by filing motions.
"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without." -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
gyrfalcon
 
Posts: 3467 [View]
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 1:34 pm

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby R.E.T. on Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:52 pm

Pitel wrote:
xd ED wrote:I agree that it's a matter of property ownership rights to say when and where it's used. But, given the practice of encouraging sharing, as it's been pointed out some of these 'victims' have done, and the fact that there needs to be damages shown, I don't see this as bootlegging software, or scanning and posting Vince Flynn's latest work. But then again, IANAL


I agree. It would be interesting to see what the "damages" are and besides, if the article in on line and does not cost a fee to view it, isn't it then considered in the public domain? Seems to me they have a tough case however, they probably don't care about a trial, just the fear tactic and lesser of the financial evil.


I agree. They are not seeking "damages", but running up lawyer fees and asking for a penalty payment. If they do not want the material copied they should make that known in their presentation. It seems to me its like some one walking through a park spreading money around and if someone picks it up, charging them with robbery.
Last edited by R.E.T. on Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the face of an uplifted knife. Oliver Wendell Holmes
Make yourself sheep, and the wolves will eat you. Benjamin Franklin
Don't blame me, I voted for an American.
R.E.T.
 
Posts: 1067 [View]
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:16 am
Location: North Minneapolis

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby xd ED on Wed Sep 29, 2010 2:06 pm

R.E.T. wrote:
Pitel wrote:
xd ED wrote:I agree that it's a matter of property ownership rights to say when and where it's used. But, given the practice of encouraging sharing, as it's been pointed out some of these 'victims' have done, and the fact that there needs to be damages shown, I don't see this as bootlegging software, or scanning and posting Vince Flynn's latest work. But then again, IANAL


I agree. It would be interesting to see what the "damages" are and besides, if the article in on line and does not cost a fee to view it, isn't it then considered in the public domain? Seems to me they have a tough case however, they probably don't care about a trial, just the fear tactic and lesser of the financial evil.


I agree. They are not seeking "damages", but running up lawyer fees and asking for a penalty payment. If they so not want the material copied they should make that known in their presentation. It seems to me its like some one walking through a park spreading money around and if someone picks it up, charging them with robbery.


Your analogy brings up another point I was considering. And this is a hypothetical "WHAT IF'. not an accusation, or suggestion of any evil or wrongdoing-
It stands to reason that there are specific posts causing this issue.
What could stop someone who happened to have a legal interest in copyrighted material, posting, in the form of a sock-puppet, said copyrighted material on a board, effecting a set-up? Again I am not making any accusations, merely trying to expand my limited knowledge of the law, copyrighted material, and the interweb.
Ed
LET'S GO BRANDON
User avatar
xd ED
 
Posts: 9016 [View]
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:28 pm
Location: Saint Paul

Re: Posting restrictions Effective immediately

Postby Q_Continuum on Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:17 pm

ArsTechnica wrote:Righthaven, the company that scours the Web for copies of Las Vegas Review Journal stories and then sues the posters for mad cash and their domain names, has hit a small bump on the copyright lawsuit superhighway. A federal judge has just tossed one of its many cases because the posting was a "fair use."


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news ... ir-use.ars
Q_Continuum
 
Posts: 133 [View]
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:07 am

Previous

Return to The Rules, Announcements & Support

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron