Whats this SeattleGhostWriter business anywho?

[_stemelbow]

Thanks for the information everyone. I looked on Mormon Dialogue board and found some information.

SeattleGhostWriter reputation points 27

Stemelbow reputation points 20.

He's better than me. I cna't say much.

[_Bond James Bond]

Thanks for the information everyone. I looked on Mormon Dialogue board and found some information.

SeattleGhostWriter reputation points 27

Stemelbow reputation points 20.

Bond...James Bond: 0

To be fair that's fair.

[_Morley]

Thanks for the information everyone. I looked on Mormon Dialogue board and found some information.

SeattleGhostWriter reputation points 27

Stemelbow reputation points 20.

He's better than me. I cna't say much.

Rest assured that the numbers would be a little different if they were posted for this board. So, go ahead: say much.

[_KimberlyAnn]

SeattleGhostWriter reputation points 27

Whatever. Everyone around here knows he's got only five. (But, to be fair, they are thick and throbby.)

KA

[_3sheets2thewind]

MsJack, thanks for the information, I would say a lawsuit is different than a take down notice.

Either way, I think most here - including myself - agree the take down notice was without merit.

We could take up donations to file a suit against SGW for his false take down notice, similar to what the EFF has filed.

[_MsJack]

by the way, I noticed this today at the DMCA Wikipedia page (emphasis mine):

The law is currently unsettled with regard to websites that contain links to infringing material; however, there have been a few lower-court decisions which have ruled against linking in some narrowly prescribed circumstances. One is when the owner of a website has already been issued an injunction against posting infringing material on their website and then links to the same material in an attempt to circumvent the injunction. Another area involves linking to software or devices which are designed to circumvent DRM (digital rights management) devices, or links from websites whose sole purpose is to circumvent copyright protection by linking to copyrighted material.[4]

There have been no cases in the US where a website owner has been found liable for linking to copyrighted material outside of the above narrow circumstances.

So there ya go. As far as "hotlinking" to infringing content goes, MDB did absolutely nothing wrong.

[_sock puppet]

SeattleGhostWriter reputation points 27

Whatever. Everyone around here knows he's got only five. (But, to be fair, they are thick and throbby.)

KA

ZING!!

[_Buffalo]

SeattleGhostWriter reputation points 27

Whatever. Everyone around here knows he's got only five. (But, to be fair, they are thick and throbby.)

KA

http://t1.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/16/15/24/400 ... h6m3LA.jpg

[_3sheets2thewind]

SeattleGhostWriter reputation points 27

Whatever. Everyone around here knows he's got only five. (But, to be fair, they are thick and throbby.)

KA

are you sure? Is it just me or does SGW look a lot like Ron Jeremy

http://media.Philadelphia.com/images/RonJeremy.jpg

same smile that is asking for a mustache ride.

[_MsJack]

MsJack, thanks for the information, I would say a lawsuit is different than a take down notice.

Either way, I think most here - including myself - agree the take down notice was without merit.

We could take up donations to file a suit against SGW for his false take down notice, similar to what the EFF has filed.

3sheets2thewind ~ I've checked with someone (not an attorney) who is incredibly knowledgeable of DMCA law, and you are correct. It does not matter whether it was officially registered with the copyright office or not. One could still file a DMCA on the matter.

However, I think the DMCA filed by SeattleSmutWriter was still false because the use of the photo here at MDB fell well within Fair Use Law, and because MDB was not hosting the image, only linking to it.

I hope to have more details on this when I know more.