OPINIONS WANTED: What should we do about images?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Dr. Shades,

It's clear the vast majority want the capability returned. Joseph is an idiot paper tiger. Ignore that fool.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Buffalo]

For my own board, The Ex-Mormon Forums, I am keeping the images off for now.

I have banned Joseph, and it is unfortunate that his brother, who has been a positive contributor - is also banned due to the IP range.

Joseph has made himself a self-subscribed board copyright monitor. Because of this, you will always be in danger. And even if Joseph does not do anything in the future, he has set precedence. Anyone now knows that a sure quick way to shut down a forum - THIS forum - is to report copyright violations and hope for DMCA takedown notices. So regardless of having Joseph banned, not banned, etc, you and I are now both going to have to deal with this.

What Joseph has done is far beyond trolling, it's just downright despicable. Using a DMCA take down I don't see an issue with it. I have done it and Stan Barker hates me beyond measure for it - but the material was MINE. I didn't troll his board for s*** like Joseph is doing.

Joseph is a class act douche bag. And while SWG issued the take down, Joseph still remains at large to do the exact same thing.

Ban Joseph. Keep your images to links only.

If we ban his ass and then make it so you have to be logged in to see images, wouldn't that solve the problem?

[_asbestosman]

If I ever find out where you live I will be over to check all your mattresses for tags.

Also, be sure that he separates his garbage and recycling properly. What if he turns criminal and happens to improperly dispose of something--a battery, old electronics, unrecycleable plastic in the recycle, etc.

If we ban his ass and then make it so you have to be logged in to see images, wouldn't that solve the problem?

I still think that instead of banning him outright, we should just redirect all image hotlinks for Joseph to goatse, gay porn, and successful minorities.

Remember everyone, the first rule of the board is that everyone is welcome and we must not dis-invite anyone. SGW is as welcome as Joseph.

[_Joseph]

3shets wrote: "copyright materials can be parodied, it just that simple."
*****************************

Yes, they can.

You might benefit from reading some of the Stanford site on Fair Use. Most of what is posted or linked to here has nothing to do with parody. Also nothing to do with critique and discussion of the images.

Your l-dsinc heritage is showing only too well in your postings here. Why do so many of you believe you are above the laws?

As for infymous, now that I know what he is really like I can deal with him in my own good time. One respone to a specific question asked of me and he bans this computer from his site? Ways around that one boy, many ways around it.

I have not come to any of these sites looking for thieves, just the luck of the draw in seeing blemnuts posting an image I know belongs to a friend... and then checking a total of three others.

As I posted before, you guys better hope the Deseret News is not saving up the evidence for a mass DMCA takedown party. If the hosting service got 20 or more DMCA notices from an outfit like that you wouldn't stand a chance. Worst part is simple: it could happen.

If you didn't steal this would not be a problem.

[_Buffalo]

So can we ban this basket case or what?

[_asbestosman]

As I posted before, you guys better hope the Deseret News is not saving up the evidence for a mass DMCA takedown party. If the hosting service got 20 or more DMCA notices from an outfit like that you wouldn't stand a chance. Worst part is simple: it could happen.

If you didn't steal this would not be a problem.

Joseph, I know this is hard for you to do, but please try to follow logic as I law things out. Many times you've made that claim that Deseret News might take down this site due to a DCMA takedown violation. So far I'm with you and agree that Deseret News might do such a thing. The problem is as follows: what does that potential threat have to do with you actually notifying someone who then proceeds to file a DCMA takedown notice? The disconnect is this: if your goal is to help this board avoid being shut down, then notifying other artists who will file DCMA takedown requests seems like an illogical manner of avoiding such a shutdown. Now, if in fact you're just saying that we should always follow the law, then Deseret News is in fact a red herring. In fact you are far more likely to be the one who gets the ball rolling to shut down this board than the Deseret News is. Perhaps, you'd care to clarify.

By the way, I put you on my friends list. I hope you don't mind. Actually, I hope you do mind.

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

[_Joseph]

On a business like DesNews amassing violations and then doing a mass DMCA takedown notice... it could happen. They are vindictive and sneaky SOB's.

I have checked out four images from this site. FOUR. Brought on by blemnuts posting an image I know belongs to a friend. I had nothing to do with the porneyboy and his family photo. I find it difficult to believe he saw it online during a 20 minute stint, took the whole thing to his lawyer(all the while getting threats & being called names or something) and then did a DMCA notice - - AFTER the offending photos was removed.

Does that make sense to you? Somewhere is that mix is a liar...

The photos I checked out have a posted message to the idiot who was using them. Check out old posts and you will see I specifically asked those posting them if they had permission.

If they 'ignore' my post that was their problem, not mine.

[_Jersey Girl]

Has a decision been reached about the images yet?

Can we link to them?

[_Dr. Shades]

Has a decision been reached about the images yet?

Yes. See: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18954

Can we link to them?

You were never NOT able to link to them.

[_Jersey Girl]

Shades,

I know we were able to link to them, I linked to one the other day. I just wanted to know if linking to them was currently viewed as a violation or not, since the jury was out...until now.

Thanks.