Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor DMCA Terrorism

[_Simon Belmont]

Even worse now are the public statements by many on here that they would deliberately post copyrighted photos without permission. All these forum discussion topics would be used as evidence if this was done.

Um...no... I just said I would post your crappy images here.

[_zeezrom]

Joseph will come back as someone else.

[_Joseph]

Below from the US Copyright office information pages

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.

Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.

For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Go home Joseph. You have no clue about copyright law. It's painful to watch you try and understand how copyright law applies to this board. Just let it go, man. You seem to be incapable of understanding even the basics.

Ban Joseph!

[_Joseph]

chung, it is apparent you are not an IP attorney or you would understand where you are incorrect here.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

chung, it is apparent you are not an IP attorney or you would understand where you are incorrect here.

And you would know because you are an IP attorney? Joseph, just go home. It is almost unbearable to watch you continue to show us how little you know about copyright law.

Ban Joseph!

[_moksha]

Joseph, a number of Tapir photos have appeared on the forum over the years, yet none of these Tapirs have given explicit legal consent to allow the usage of their image. Perhaps if you approached a record company executive and asked him to bankroll a class action suit he might willingly do so, if you had the Tapirs agree to smuggle some cocaine in their flight bag when flying in to testify. The record company could enjoy a reaffirmation in their DMCA efforts.

The Tapirs in turn would enjoy a good cooling off from the chilling effect your DMCA threats have on MD policy. The Tapirs could also take the grand tour of the Maxwell Institute while they were in the States and perhaps share some donuts in the War Room. The Maxwell Institute would have the opportunity to convince the Tapirs to sign affidavits that their ancestors once pulled New World chariots. You would have the satisfaction of a job well done.

The only distinct losers would be the posters on Mormon Discussions who can no longer see graphics attached to posts.

.

[_beastie]

Joseph will come back as someone else.

And that sock puppet should be banned as soon as it's apparent it's Joseph.

He's engaging in a form of trolling with this issue. He likes the attention and the perceived power. As a sock puppet, he wouldn't be able to resist starting the trolling again.

At one point I was concerned that, even as a sock puppet, he could cause legal difficulties for Shades. But Everybody Wang Chung has made it clear that any case against this board wouldn't see the light of day because it is non-profit. So Joseph's only possible impact is to get posters upset and provoke actions on Shade's part. To attain that impact he would have to start making Joseph-like noises about copyright. So, as a sock puppet, he'd either be easy to spot and ban, or he'd have to drop this ridiculous crusade. Either way, we win.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hmm. Keep Joseph and lose the right to post images.

Or.

Lose Joseph, and have the right to post images.

Tough call, Dr. Shades.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Joseph]

A trusting fool wrote: "But Everybody Wang Chung has made it clear that any case against this board wouldn't see the light of day because it is non-profit."

Just as 'non profits' don't have to pay or collect taxes?

Better do more research and not trust an internet lawyer who may or many not be a chinaman.