**MEGATHREAD:** RECENT EVENTS & THE FUTURE OF THE BOARD

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

As a Mod, frankly, I am hesitant in being the one doing the screening.

What if one of us makes a wrong call?

None of us are skilled at copyright law. We're either likely to be too paranoid based on the board already taken down, or too lienient, based on our inboxes being filled with impatient requests.

I also agree with Ms. Jack that this basic screening will slow down the flow of threads.

Shades, it's your board, and you know I have always been your most avid supporter, but I am concerned about this.

I'm thinking that the best way to go is either to put the img code back for everyone, or leave it off for everyone, the way Infy has decided to go.

How are other boards handling this? Did our host indicate that we would be under more of a "watch" based on these incidents, or is it still up to us to police ourselves?

There just aren't any easy answers for this one.

Is there any way to have a warning come up before hotlinking, something to the effect of do not post anything which may infringe a copyright, invade privacy, or is a stupid obscenity. That might help avoid some honest mistakes.

[_Nightlion]

Shades et al:

I seriously wonder what would happen if I made this deal:

If Shades agrees to ban Joseph, I will permanently leave the board.

I wonder what would happen...

Totally unacceptable. Everybody loves Simon.

Unless Joseph is that guy in the next cubicle from you at COB's Cyber Misinformation and Crisis Management Security Operations and both of you need to reinvent yourselves. But I do not think so.

Joseph is definitely here to muck up the place. His pistolero posting of idiotic crap is overt graffiti intended to make it as unpleasant as one man can. Now that he admits his intent to cause so much trouble otherwise and is no shmuck about laws and such I think that the case is made that he is a paid man doing a job.

He purposely refuses to allow the quote feature to work. Patently, overt misdirection. Who trained this guy? FBI is my guess.

[_Nightlion]

There just aren't any easy answers for this one.

How about a secondary picture hosting. Something that the host could take down without taking down the board. We use something like photobucket and that goes into the MDB Bucket but still shows up on a thread.

I am no programmer. But could this not work?

[_Yoda]

There just aren't any easy answers for this one.

How about a secondary picture hosting. Something that the host could take down without taking down the board. We use something like photobucket and that goes into the MDB Bucket but still shows up on a thread.

I am no programmer. But could this not work?

Actually, that isn't a bad idea. Keene could probably could create something like that.

Another point I would like to make.

In doing some research, I came across this article on Wikipedia concerning the Fair Use act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content

According to what I am reading, I really think that our avatars are OK, since all of the commercial ones are scaled down and are not top image quality. Also, we are not using these avatars for any type of commercial purpose. I believe that they would fall under the personal or simply reference category.

I could be wrong. Anyone else taking a look is free to comment.

[_Mayan Elephant]

holy crap people.

i just read this whole thread, it is the only one i have read over here. y'all are some dedicated people.

thanks for coming our way for a day or so. it was good having you in the foyer for a while.

this joseph thing really touched a nerve with me. i have seen other boards give someone the old heave-ho, idiots gotta go. sometimes people just gotta go. but i also like having a bit of anarchy and chaos, even conflict sometimes. but this joseph sich you got going is bizarre.

if i read this correctly, some dude is registered on this board, and he is sitting in his underpants in front of a computer somewhere, and he is staring at everything you guys link to or embed, and he is going to report your asses to the po-po if he thinks you are not following the rules.

lets put this in real perspective here. he is staking out the higher moral ground, because he knows the rules and he is willing to, like that feller in blazing saddles, be the sheriff.

hey joseph, you are really not very clever on this. you are not cool, you are not morally superior to anyone. you are not saving kittens or baby jesuses, you are just being a spoiled baby.

what you are doing, joseph, is the moral equivalent to sitting in front of your house, and reporting every neighbor who passes by at a speed, even one mph, in excess of the posted limit. there is nothing noble about it. there is nothing morally great about it. these people arent stealing crap. they are posting pictures on a message board. we are in 2011.

anyways. thanks again all yous that came by. and good luck with this sheriff-being guy. not sure why he picked on you guys. seems he would have more fun threatening people he didn't pretend to like, but what do i know?

[_Mayan Elephant]

not that it matters to me. i probably wont be reading much on here. but i am going to say what seems to me to be the obvious solution.

1 - do what the doctor has already done, contact dreamhost (or whatever they are called) and just say that you believe, all your posts fall under the fair use realm, that they are not for sale, etc., and that you will continue to allow pictures, and respond to inquiries from the host and from those that express a copyright concern.

2 - then i would tell joseph to find a furry anaconda in an igloo somewhere. not banning him, just telling you don't give a rats ass.

3 - then i would carry on like nothing every happened, if joseph wants to pester content providers and send out demerits and detention slips, so be it.

4 - then, i would lobby the hosts on this board to add one cool feature. the ignored feature. not ignore. ignored. where you can block people from seeing and reading your content. sorta like unfriending your mom on Facebook. i am pretty sure that DCP would like to add that feature and get me off his computer, again.

[_Bond James Bond]

holy crap people.

i just read this whole thread, it is the only one i have read over here. y'all are some dedicated people.

thanks for coming our way for a day or so. it was good having you in the foyer for a while.

this joseph thing really touched a nerve with me. i have seen other boards give someone the old heave-ho, f*****s gotta go. sometimes people just gotta go. but i also like having a bit of anarchy and chaos, even conflict sometimes. but this joseph sich you got going is bizarre.

if i read this correctly, some dude is registered on this board, and he is sitting in his underpants in front of a computer somewhere, and he is staring at everything you guys link to or embed, and he is going to report your asses to the po-po if he thinks you are not following the rules.

lets put this in real perspective here. he is staking out the higher moral ground, because he knows the rules and he is willing to, like that feller in blazing saddles, be the sheriff.

hey joseph, you are really not very clever on this. you are not cool, you are not morally superior to anyone. you are not saving kittens or baby jesuses, you are just being a spoiled baby.

what you are doing, joseph, is the moral equivalent to sitting in front of your house, and reporting every neighbor who passes by at a speed, even one mph, in excess of the posted limit. there is nothing noble about it. there is nothing morally great about it. these people aren't stealing s***. they are posting pictures on a message board. we are in 2011.

anyways. thanks again all yous that came by. and good luck with this sheriff-being guy. not sure why he picked on you guys. seems he would have more fun threatening people he didn't pretend to like, but what do i know?

I agree he is being totally pedantic and misguided with his board nannying.

Thanks for your hospitality over there Mayan. Welcome to the board, hope you find something to post about. Be well.

[_Blixa]

Hey there, Mayan. Nice to see you.

I don't know what the upshot of this is going to be. If people cave in to the kind of thugs that pushed through corrupt copyright legislation (stuff like the DMCA, which is being contested by librarians, academics and artists world wide since it's weighted on the side of corporate moneybags and not "starving artists") then I suspect I will pull up stakes.

If Joseph were so upset about a small photo I posted to celebrate its awesomeness, then he could have pm'd me to let me know. I didn't see his post threatening to narc on me because I've had him on ignore for over year due to his racist insults. As far as I know, that was the only attempt he made to reconcile the problem in good faith. In other words, there was no attempt to reconcile the problem in good faith, but only an attempt to score points against "the enemy." Why am I the enemy? I probably don't hate Mormons or the Japanese enough to suit him.

[_Morley]

Another point I would like to make.

In doing some research, I came across this article on Wikipedia concerning the Fair Use act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content

According to what I am reading, I really think that our avatars are OK, since all of the commercial ones are scaled down and are not top image quality. Also, we are not using these avatars for any type of commercial purpose. I believe that they would fall under the personal or simply reference category.

I could be wrong. Anyone else taking a look is free to comment.

Yeah Liz, I posted about this last night in the Don’t let the Mormon Legal Beagles scare you thread.

(Since I just now crashed my browser trying to link to the specific post, I'll try to duplicate the post here.)

The post:
..............

Taken from the Fair use on the Internet portion of the Wikipedia article on Fair Use:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Quote:

On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement.

Emphasis added.

Note the bolded part. I don't think anyone has to worry too much about copyrighted avatars. Of course, it is just Wikipedia, which is not exactly the last word in legal issues.

[_Kishkumen]

Unless Joseph is that guy in the next cubicle from you at COB's Cyber Misinformation and Crisis Management Security Operations and both of you need to reinvent yourselves.

Simon works for Church Security as a private contractor.