Solutions for Shades' EXTREME Risk Avoidance

[_dblagent007]

We need to find a solution to Shades' extreme risk avoidance when it comes to copyright infringement allegations. The current state of affairs is this: (1) someone makes even the subtlest hint that possibly there is a potential copyright issue and (2) Shades cleanses the board of the alleged infringing subject matter. This is ridiculous. We need to find a solution to the problem and here are some of my thoughts.

First, I seriously doubt that Shades has consulted an attorney about this because I can't imagine an attorney being this conservative. The DMCA safe harbor makes it extremely difficult to sue the operator of an Internet forum for the content posted by users, yet Shades acts as if he is liable for everything. I can't imagine that he has actually consulted an attorney about this. One solution is to help Shades find legal counsel to give him the comfort level he needs to stop taking everything down every time a mopologist mouths the work "copyright."

Second, I don't know how the ownership of the board is structured, but perhaps it could be changed so that people who understand more about copyright law and aren't so risk adverse are the ones who make these kinds of decisions. For example, if I was making the decisions, with my own personal liability on the line, I would tell the mopologists to go to hell (including Seattle Ghost Writer). The chances of the board being liable for copyright infringement in those cases is virtually zero.

If anyone else has some ideas, please share. We need to get this fixed so that Shades stops taking things down for no reason.

[_honorentheos]

It's a good idea, dblagent007.

To be fair to Shades, the SGW incident probably influences Shades behaviour to a large extent. If you recall, the board was shut down over the weekend by the host without consulting Shades. I think any solution along the lines you are describing should look at ways to move the board to a hosting site where the host is also sympathetic and not likely to take action without consulting the board owner and/or legal counsel.

It isn't just how legitimate the legal claims might be, it's how likely the host is to pull the plug as the easy answer to avoid liability on their end where they have little to no investment in keeping the board online in the face of a dispute.

[_DrW]

Seems to me that Dr. Shades is being overly cautious in the extreme, especially now that the Dehlin hit piece has been published along with a defensive, self-serving 70 page commentary and time line attempting to justifying in some way the behavior of the OMIDS in all of this.

The situation here at MDB really does need to be addressed. I just cannot see any way that Dr. Shades as the site owner (if that is how it is structured), or the moderators, could possibly have any liability here. The Dr. Scratch review in question is well within the bounds of fair use, which bounds have been close-approached often by Classic FARMS many times in reviewing the work of perceived anti-Mormons.

As confirmed by the many references to this board and to specific board members in the hit piece, MDB is an important source of fact and reason for those who have figured out the scam that is Mormonism.

I, for one, would be willing to contribute to a fund to retain competent counsel to get this sorted out, if that is what it takes, provided a long term fix can be achieved. And I am pretty sure there are others who would also be willing to contribute funding or assist in other important ways.