Don?????t let the Mormon Legal Beagles scare you

[_MrStakhanovite]

This is exactly what they want, to shut everyone up. I advocate no policy changes on the board and the immediate return of images. We didn’t do anything wrong, and we shouldn’t back down because some weepy ham doesn’t want people making fun of him. When you start a blog, and start plastering your name and picture everywhere, you become a public figure and have to live with it.

Don’t capitulate to DCP and Juliann, we were wronged, not SGW.

[_EAllusion]

I think SGW set a precedent that is going to be copied. My advice on what to do would start with finding out how the webhost is going to respond to future complaints.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I think SGW set a precedent that is going to be copied. My advice on what to do would start with finding out how the webhost is going to respond to future complaints.

It's a risky precedent, we didn't host the image, we hot linked to an image he put himself for the express purpose of making his image publicly available. When you publicly solicit for donations to fund your own apologetic work, this is the kind of attention you are going to receive.

But your main point is spot on, we need to know how our host is going to deal with this in the future.

[_EAllusion]

It's a risky precedent, we didn't host the image, we hot linked to an image he put himself for the express purpose of making his image publicly available.

I'm not saying this board has any actual legal worries. I'm saying I think we can expect a decent chance of some more legalish complaints to the webhost. So we need to know how the webhost is going to deal with those before setting policy. It's like we're dealing with scientologists, I swear.

[_honorentheos]

If this is true, which is probably the case, then perhaps Shades should look more closely at responding with a real legal filing against the false claim made by SGW? It's always less appealing to hit someone who hits back, and harder. Not exactly Christ-like, but I think even the more Christian-minded among us would appreciate the idea of being wise as serpents.

If nothing else, keeping it on the table, and substantiating how real and expensive it could become to the parties involved seems like a pretty good deterrent to me.

[_EAllusion]

I fully support pursuing legal options if SGW filed a false DMCA claim. That's serious and involves more than bruised egos.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I'm not saying this board has any actual legal worries. I'm saying I think we can expect a decent chance of some more legalish complaints to the webhost. So we need to know how the webhost is going to deal with those before setting policy. It's like we're dealing with scientologists, I swear.

I'm with you 100% here and that is exactly the type of person(s) we are dealing with here.

[_MrStakhanovite]

If nothing else, keeping it on the table, and substantiating how real and expensive it could become to the parties involved seems like a pretty good deterrent to me.

I fully support pursuing legal options if SGW filed a false DMCA claim. That's serious and involves more than bruised egos.

I think you guys have it.

[_Infymus]

Tim hired an attorney to try and get a thread about him shut down that he claimed was;

vile threats towards me, published photo's of myself and family members, and participated in the most outlandish defamation ever

He just scored lucky on one point with the photo and filed the DMCA for a hot linked image stored on Photobucket, et al. I think he had no idea it would actually wipe MDB off the Internet for hours, and the repercussion of that power for some at MAD was akin to a light bulb going off. Who'da thunk?

Regardless, I'm not an attorney so I don't know the exact answers and can only relay what I've discovered, read, researched. For the moment, I have taken the IMG tag off the Ex-Mormon Forums until further notice as well, just as a precaution.

The fact is, we're entering a new era here with apologists and critics. IMHO, Daniel Peterson started this with his threats of litigation. With SGW, Juliann ad the others on MAD, I am left wondering if this new kind of board warfare will continue.

Even my avatar, of a young Spock from Star Trek Reboot is a copyrighted image. And it's being displayed on Shade's board. And while some in the Mormon Apologetic world might suggest that this sort of thing is more rampant on "Anti Mormon" or "Ex-Mormon" forums - they're totally wrong, it is rampant on the Internet as a whole. It always has been, it always will be. And if the apologists - and assholes like Joseph - want to cry copyright and try and police the boards, then it is going to turn into a mess in a hurry. I'll bet you that in less than 5 minutes of scanning the MAD board I could find enough images to warrant DMCA take downs to clog an inbox.

So I say "all y'all" knock off the copyright BS and tone down on the personal attacks.

[_sock puppet]

I think SGW set a precedent that is going to be copied. My advice on what to do would start with finding out how the webhost is going to respond to future complaints.

It's a risky precedent, we didn't host the image, we hot linked to an image he put himself for the express purpose of making his image publicly available. When you publicly solicit for donations to fund your own apologetic work, this is the kind of attention you are going to receive.

But your main point is spot on, we need to know how our host is going to deal with this in the future.

Good point, Stak. We digitally pointed our finger (pun intended) to draw others' attention to a photo that SGW himself made and continued to make public. If we hold up a mirror of someone's publicly displayed photo, so that others in a different direction could see it, have we in someway violated the person who made it public in the first place? Just as with a mirror, as soon as SGW might take the photo down from his Facebook page, then so too vanishes the linked image.