The Joseph Solution

[_beastie]

The Joseph Solution

Everybody Wang Chung has made it clear and plain that Joseph is a toothless tiger on this thread:

viewtopic.php?p=481242#p481242

It appears that the worst the self-appointed Deputy Dan can do to this board is to succeed in having it shut down a day or two, a la SeattleGhostWriter. This shut down was not apparently due so much to SGW having a legitimate case, but rather the host server’s itchy finger and desire to avoid any possible problems. Once Shades figured out how to remove the image, the problem was solved. Board back up. I assume that now that Shades has had his baptism by fire, that process would be easier on him should it happen again. And, of course, the only way it could happen again would be if Deputy Dan has access to a free lawyer, which I doubt.

I know it’s inconvenient and annoying, but having the board shut down for unjust cause for a day or two isn’t the end of the world. Anyone who thinks it is needs to expand their interests.

Knowing that this is the worst that can happen, I don’t even care anymore if Joseph is banned or not. I have him on ignore and intend to keep him there. For all practical purposes, I ignored his posts even before putting him on ignore because he’s suspiciously extreme. (In other words, I smell a poser troll.) It does appear many other posters ignore Joseph, except for the copyright issues.

I suggest that it makes no difference if Joseph howls and natters and chatters and yammers about copyright to his heart’s content as long as we all ignore him. And that includes Shades ignoring him by reinstating images. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Maybe, but who cares?

I rarely, if ever, have posted images on this board. But some of our most entertaining and creative posters do so on a regular basis. Forbidding images diminishes this board, and gives Deupty Dan an unwarranted feeling of power.

Reinstate images.

Ignore Joseph.

[_Joseph]

You might ask wingching how any IP cases he has handled?

Every court appearance is a crapshoot.

Do you really want to gamble on 'fair use' when you will be posting photos in their entirety? No 'transformative' use? No critique or commentary? It is always a judgment call until a court gives a final ruling whether the use of a photograph is fair. wing ching believes work that has been used without permission here can use the defense of "fair use,". Don't be too quick to accept that answer.

wing ching tells you that since this is not a commercial site, you are protected. Just as with Mormons 'wanting to believe' so they accept anything as an explanation so it is here. Don't be too quick to accept that answer.

"A review of significant fair use cases can be found on Stanford's Fair Use Website. A review shows that it is sometimes difficult to predict how a court will rule on a fair use case. While this can partially be attributed to the specific fact situations presented, it does appear that the current application of the law on fair use is unstable and unpredictable." (PhotoAttorney.com, May 13, 2008)

The Solution is simple. Post what is yours or photos you have permission to post. Doing that is simple. Appropriating and stealing is wrong. Somehow too many on here don't believe that.

*********************************

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... 9/9-b.html

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I can't believe Mr. Shades is allowing this forum to be held hostage to a turtle's dick.

[_Joseph]

While you guys are searching for solutions and wingching the attorney assures you there is nothnig to worry about in using the IP of others without permission... ask him if he guarantees it? To the extent he will pay all costs associated with any legal action as well as any Jugements that may result?

He/she/it is a lawyer telling you what you want to hear. It is not reality. See if this joker will put its money on the line.

[_Joseph]

cammie, you have fun playing the intellectual educator. Do you steal the work of others to teach from?

Why so upset? NO ONE is holding the site hostage... it is the illegal/unauthorized use of the property of others that have you here.

Don't use images this way and you have no problem.

Even a pseudo-academic should be able to understand that.

Or, to put it in language you may better understand. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

Don't steal, it is just that simple.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Joseph is a window licker. Here's a link to what a window licker looks like:

http://s1.static.gotsmile.net/images/20 ... 411863.jpg

He's also a turtle's dick. Here's a link to what a turtle's dick looks like (definitely NSFW):

http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology ... penis1.jpg

This guy is the biggest idiot I've ever, EVER, seen post on the Internets. The fact that Mr. Shades would allow this window licking turtle dick dictate how he's going to run his forum speaks volumes about him.

I've completely lost respect for Mr. Shades. Zero.

V/R
Dr. Cameron, NC for Me

[_Joseph]

cam, ask yourself what would happen with a half dozen DMCA notices hitting the ISP in a week. A dozen or more?

If even one went to court filings, how would an anti-mormon hate site be viewed by either a judge or a jury? In the minds of many l-dsinc people this site is the KKK of anti-mormon hate. Do you really think your attitude of 'I can take anything I want at any time' would fly?

You now DesNews, IRI and LDS materials would be posted. You know these folks have more attorneys on retainer than most large corporations.

Get to court and see how 'anti Mormon Hate Site' plays out with stealing the intellectual property of others?

See how many of your posters run for the ratholes when discovery demands their real identities, ISP addresses and all their posts to be used as evidence. That is a real possibility when one person whose image you post gets pissed. Many would never allow their photos to be used for a religious hate site. Worse than tobacco in their minds.

If you don't think taking the photo of ONE photographer, the wrong one who gets pissed off, can have consequences and run you and the site owners/posters through legal hell for a few years.... take a look at what happened here. http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/ ... ht_lawsuit

It was more about being pissed off than money. This photographer made it his lifes goal for a few years to get these guys.

What happens here if you get one like that? What happens here if you get IRI, Deseret News, church magazines or BigTom pissed off? The Tanners were only a small example of what will happen.

It is coming as surely as joethecoxmans demise was coming. If you start posting, it will happen. A religious HateSite will not go over well.

[_Themis]

The Joseph Solution

Everybody Wang Chung has made it clear and plain that Joseph is a toothless tiger on this thread:

viewtopic.php?p=481242#p481242

It appears that the worst the self-appointed Deputy Dan can do to this board is to succeed in having it shut down a day or two, a la SeattleGhostWriter. This shut down was not apparently due so much to SGW having a legitimate case, but rather the host server’s itchy finger and desire to avoid any possible problems. Once Shades figured out how to remove the image, the problem was solved. Board back up. I assume that now that Shades has had his baptism by fire, that process would be easier on him should it happen again. And, of course, the only way it could happen again would be if Deputy Dan has access to a free lawyer, which I doubt.

I know it’s inconvenient and annoying, but having the board shut down for unjust cause for a day or two isn’t the end of the world. Anyone who thinks it is needs to expand their interests.

Knowing that this is the worst that can happen, I don’t even care anymore if Joseph is banned or not. I have him on ignore and intend to keep him there. For all practical purposes, I ignored his posts even before putting him on ignore because he’s suspiciously extreme. (In other words, I smell a poser troll.) It does appear many other posters ignore Joseph, except for the copyright issues.

I suggest that it makes no difference if Joseph howls and natters and chatters and yammers about copyright to his heart’s content as long as we all ignore him. And that includes Shades ignoring him by reinstating images. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Maybe, but who cares?

I rarely, if ever, have posted images on this board. But some of our most entertaining and creative posters do so on a regular basis. Forbidding images diminishes this board, and gives Deupty Dan an unwarranted feeling of power.

Reinstate images.

Ignore Joseph.

+1

I noticed you must have hit a nerve with Joseph. I suspect he knows he can't really do much. Certainly pictures get used from time to time that may violate to some degree copy write law. This happens on any forums, blogs, etc in which images are allowed to be used. When complaints are raised they can easily be removed. Threat of court action is basically toothless. Anyone with half a brain realizes that any image they have up on the internet is likely to be used at some point, and legal action would be fruitless and a money sink becuase most sites don't have the resources to make it worth their while, and courts may not give them the verdict they want. Especially if they comply with removal requests which is really all they would want. How long has this forum been running without problems?

[_Themis]

If you don't think taking the photo of ONE photographer, the wrong one who gets pissed off, can have consequences and run you and the site owners/posters through legal hell for a few years.... take a look at what happened here. http://www.phototour.minneapolis.mn.us/ ... ht_lawsuit

You should find a case that is relevant. It has to do with a business using his picture for advertising, and when he complained to them, he got bullied and claimed he stole the picture from them. This case really is not even close to relevant to any situation that might occur here. Do you really think this photographer would sue this site if he saw his picture being used. Of course not. He would request a removal and it would be complied with. End of story. This is a situation that is happening millions of times. AS long as any site is willing to remove pictures upon request there really is little threat of legal action, even from anti-critics.

[_Simon Belmont]

Every court appearance is a crapshoot.

Hey dumbass, you may be anti-American, but I have full faith in our legal system.

Go away.