Licence? What licence? All your links are belong to us!
-
Yeah, my guess is it was some mean-looking but toothless C&D? I’ve gotten a few of those, and I like to respond by sending them my electric or gas bill. I guess to be fair, eBay has a lot (mostly?) pirate/counterfeit software… and the sellers may not even realize it’s a forgery… so maybe a blanket thing? Or, maybe their license actually forbids resale? No idea.
You can turn off the feature in Discourse however. I choose to keep it on b/c I believe it’s OK, and the risk to getting sued seems so small vs. the usability benefit.
-
-
No, they wanted a few hundred per copy for damages, any money I made, the contact information for where I obtained the copies I was selling, and any additional copies I was selling. Failure to comply within a month, and they were going to file a lawsuit. wrote them back, mentioned that I had spoken to S from S,O&W, and that he informed me that I had done nothing wrong. Never heard back from them.
As for the license, since the software was in its original, unopened packaging, they had no indication that I had accepted the licensing terms, so they couldn't come after me that way.
As for the feature in Discourse, I agree that the local hosting could be beneficial. I just think that Discourse should probably include some sort of citation for auto-downloaded files. At the very least, it would give a way of saying "Hey, at least I'm recognizing the source!" Maybe we should propose that over on meta.discourse.org.
-
Why are there squares in your post?
According to my image search, those are "Large White pigs".
-
According to my image search, those are "Large White pigs".
According to mine, they're "play video".
-
Another issue woefully misunderstood by armchair lawyers and people who've never had to deal with this thing.
Downloading an image and caching it locally: legal. If you didn't have a local cache you couldn't physically view it at all in the first place.
Hotlinking: questionable legally. Yes, there's the argument about stealing bandwidth but it's surprisingly difficult to prove that and there are various hotlinking precautions that can be taken.
What is the legal difference about viewing a picture on a given website, and viewing the same picture 'hotlinked' through another site? Certainly there's the argument about intent and that the copyright owner is entitled to do so - but then we have Google. Google Image Search is frequently given a free pass on these things, which has set an interesting precedent.
Local image caching: very questionable legally. Let's look at it this way: a site that doesn't want you hotlinking, DEFINITELY won't want a DC installation locally caching and redistributing an image.
There's also absolutely no grounds in DMCA (yes, chuckleheads, it's not the DCMA, as it's the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) for the host on this one. The Safe Harbor provisions do not apply in this situation. If a poster chooses to hotlink an image or worse upload an image (which leads you to the whole redistribution angle), Safe Harbor disclaims the site owner from responsibility provided due takedown protocol is followed - and all this becomes possible because it's not the site owner that's doing the deed. Liability is on the person who did it in that situation.
Having the software doing it automatically - optional or not - is very questionable if it's a long term cache. If it's short term (e.g. 7 days) it's a lot easier to argue its defence as being a cache (which is considered acceptable in most cases because of the requirement of some kind of cache to be able to see it, and caching does not implicitly constitute redistribution, while outright making it an attachment DOES)
I'm glad it's optional and it should be off by default.
As for the security angle, this has been an issue for literally years with the existing software out there, though fortunately there haven't been that many high profile examples of normal web images being directly malicious. The switcheroo argument on the other hand is also a matter that has been true forever on the internet - since it applies to links as well as images. Perhaps we should mandate that everything goes through the Web Archive and always link to that instead?
-
You do realize that if a user posts an image from another site, they're posting an image whether the image is hotlinked or cached.
It's a choice between:
- Lose context when the other site inevitably dies
and
- Other site doesn't have to pay for bandwidth
-
Yes, I realise both of those, and they are practical arguments. But since when was the law practical? Copyright law is one of the worst-defined segments of law out there, around the same level as patent and trademark law.
-
No, they wanted a few hundred per copy for damages, any money I made, the contact information for where I obtained the copies I was selling, and any additional copies I was selling. Failure to comply within a month, and they were going to file a lawsuit.
Here's some free legal advice. Next time you're in this situation, send them a copy of your mortgage statement and demand that they pay it off. For less threating letters, you can just send them regular bills such as electric or phone bills. If they don't immediately pay, then you can enter settlement negotiations... but don't settle for any less than $50.
And if that plan fails, you can retain me as a lawyer.
-
How does that work, exactly?
-
Perhaps we should mandate that everything goes through the Web Archive and always link to that instead?
Actually, that's a good point; not the hosting stuff there of course. What we're doing here is no "worse" than what the Internet Archive does. The original source is available (albeit, buried in the post edit history). I do agree that a more conspicuous source would be desired.
-
How does that work, exactly?
Well it's pretty simple, really. You pay the very reasonable retainer fee, and then we go from there.
-
Does Discourse obey a robots.txt disclaimer? IA does. Also, every argument made about IA applies to Google too.
Additionally, neither IA nor Google make any pretence of ownership of the material they're presenting. They're making it very clear that it is content from elsewhere. Complete with links to the original material.
That's the key difference here: Discourse actively represents the content has having been uploaded to the site even when it wasn't. Hot linking doesn't generally present that same pretence (and still falls safely on the side of it's down to the user, something that isn't the case with Discourse doing its hosting thing)
As for the legal advice... given the argument in another thread about the lack of accountability on the part of open software, you can probably imagine my skepticism in terms of free advice. You've offered free advice, I would love to know on what basis that advice was given - as in, not because you have a degree, which is far from the same thing as being a practising lawyer, but on what basis in law that actually has. I've heard some crazy-ass stuff but I fail to see on what basis that would actually work.
EDIT TO ADD:
FWIW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Commerce_Directive_(EU) is interesting reading here. Notice the difference between 'caching' and hosting' What DC does is not caching under that definition.Full wording begins: http://euwiki.org/2000/31/EC#Article_12
As has been observed before, it's probably built with a US-centric implementation in mind including all the laws and so on. Us in Europe have slightly different rules to play by and that does not implicitly include US law.
-
Sounds like one of those commie ur a peon laws.
-
You can turn off the feature in Discourse however. I choose to keep it on b/c I believe it’s OK, and the risk to getting sued seems so small vs. the usability benefit.
That would explain why I didn't find the same behaviour on bbs.boingboing.net.
-
Does Discourse obey a robots.txt disclaimer?
That's an excellent point. Robots — including ones in RoR sites — should obey such directives. (It would have to stay as an external link then, but that's OK.)
Discourse actively represents the content has having been uploaded to the site even when it wasn't.
It also actively presents it as having been uploaded by the poster here, because access to the post modification history has been turned off.
-
I do agree that a more conspicuous source would be desired.
Agreed. Either appending a line underneath, hover text, or anchoring the image with a link back to source.
-
Here we go, then. You're now hosting and distributing top secret US government material.
-
Here's some free legal advice. Next time you're in this situation, send them a copy of your mortgage statement and demand that they pay it off. For less threating letters, you can just send them regular bills such as electric or phone bills. If they don't immediately pay, then you can enter settlement negotiations... but don't settle for any less than $50.
And if that plan fails, you can retain me as a lawyer.
Since I've got a friend at S,O&W (which is an interstate IP firm), I just consulted him after I'd received multiple letters, and he let me use his firm's name in my communications for free. It got them out of my hair with no further harassment. Why would I need to retain you?
-
-
@abarker said:
Why would I need to retain you?
More comedy value for the rest of us?
This. I guarantee it.
-
Go a step further and post it on the discourse forums.
-
So as long as I store my pirate software in my browsers cache folder I'm fine?
-
Honestly? Probably yes.
It's the problem of laws being written by people with no understanding of the technology they're writing laws for.
Of course, people who do understand these things are being lured into writing actual functional laws to fight piracy and the like, because money talks.
Filed under: It generally doesn't have much to say, though
-
So as long as I store my pirate software in my browsers cache folder I'm fine?
No. Reason: pirated is pirated, no matter where you store it. You can't legalize what is not legally available on the net by storing it inyour browser cache.With media like images, that are publicized on the web, things are different. First: they have been made public for the consumption by the public. Second: you can tell a browser not to cache your content. Third: even if the browser caches the image, the source is always clearly visible. Fourth (and most important): your browser is not redistributing the images over the web.
Discourse, on the other hand, makes a local copy and then distributes that copy as if it had the licence for distribution, giving no indictaion whatsoever of original ownership of the work in question.
This has nothing to do with copyright laws in far-away countries like Germany - this is a huge problem even in Discourse's homemarket of the US. The image posted by @tufty won't get Alex into prison (he can always cite prior publication), and the US government might not sue for damages re its intellectual property, but an enterprising lawyer might see ample opportunity to exploit Discourse's behaviour:
- Find a photographer who could need some extra revenue
- Find someone to post a link to a specific artwork by that photographer
- Wait for Discourse to make local copy of that artwork
- Document that this site is serving said artwork as its own
- Sue for damages
I don't know for how many Discourse installations the feature of making a local copy is turned on (it wasn't for BoingBoing last time I checked), but the more sites are careless enough to use this "feature", the greater the chance of a lawsuit coming up.
-
Except the United States has this funny thing called the DMCA (47 USC §230) which means Discourse installation owners aren't liable for what their users post or otherwise cause Discourse to host. Furthermore Sony v. Universal City Studios and MGM v. Grokster provide that as long as a platform or product has substantial uses other than copyright infringement, the makers of that product/platform aren't liable either. Since Discourse presumably allows people to engage in, well, discourse, Atwood couldn't be sued either. Only the individual user who makes a post to Discourse is liable.
-
Except the United States has this funny thing called the DMCA (47 USC §230) which means Discourse installation owners aren't liable for what their users post or otherwise cause Discourse to host.
For what the users post, agreed. For "cause Discourse to host": not.From an etsy help topic: "Generally, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner."
The moment Discourse decides to copy the work of art and henceforth distribute it out of its own database, copyright infringement occurs.
That's why companies like twitter or facebook make a distintcion between the user providing a link, or the user uploading something.
The only case remotely like what Discourse is doing are search engines. And even they restrict copying to thumbnails. Anything larger than a thumbnail is served as an inlined image from the original source. And even the thumbnails are not distributed without indication of the original source in the "title" attribute.
-
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. @apapadimoulis has the feature turned on, and we've gone over the pros and cons of the issue and it's for him to decide what's best for TDWTF. It's his right as a business owner to weigh the risks of having it on vs having it off, and to come to a conclusion about how he's going to operate his business (which TDWTF is a business, if not strictly a traditional one.)
I would recommend Discourse include a potential warning about copyright, but it's not for us to decide what features get in to Discourse, as we have no stake in the software other than using at TDWTF (which @apapadimoulis is the ultimate owner on how we experience that software)
-
Good way of putting it.
I don't think anyone in the history of the internet has ever been sued for copyright infringement for uploading an image to a forum in this manner, let alone held liable, nor do I think it would ever happen given the costs that would be involved in bringing such action. There are so many better lawsuit "bets" to make.
More likely than not, a copyright holder will ask the image to be removed, in which case it will be.
After seeing the long-lost Mandatory Fun Day user comics, I think it's well worth the minuscule risk to "cache" images posted in this manner. I also have no moral/ethical issues with it, as I believe it's fair use.
But I do agree that Discourse should indicate to users that this behavior will occur, and that they can do X to work-around it.
-
As much as I agree with @Matches, I sometimes have the impression that you do not get what this really is about.
I don't think anyone in the history of the internet has ever been sued for copyright infringement for uploading an image to a forum in this manner
Again, this is not the user uploading copyrighted material to your site, this is your site downloading and distributing copyrighted material.More likely than not, a copyright holder will ask the image to be removed
Or will sue. This is what Perfect 10 vs. Google has all been about.I believe it's fair use.
Might be. And then again it might be not. You are not caching thumbnails, which, according to Perfect 10 vs. Google seems indeed to be covered by "fair use".But I do agree that Discourse should indicate to users that this behavior will occur, and that they can do X to work-around it.
Definitely. A toaster would be perfect ;-)
-
Again, this is not the user uploading copyrighted material to your site, this is your site downloading and distributing copyrighted material.
I understand that; someone else in this thread mentioned that the user would be liable, so this was sort of replying to it from that angle. But my point is the same... there are so many better legal "bets" to make than suing INEDO PUBLISHING LLC.
This is what Perfect 10 vs. Google has all been about
There are a lot of differences, but important ones are that this is a small forum (not the search engine) and the streets here are not paved with gold (they actually do that at Google, so I hear).
-
This post is deleted!
-
the streets here are not paved with gold (they actually do that at Google, so I hear).
I thought that was only due to the fact that they use the waste energy from running all those servers to perform alchemical transmutation to get the excess gold?
-
I thought that was only due to the fact that they use the waste energy from running all those servers to perform alchemical transmutation to get the excess gold?
Whereas we're stuck with these useless solar freakin' roadways.
-
Whereas we're stuck with these useless solar freakin' roadways.
At least it's not Rainbow fucking Road.
-
At least it's not Rainbow fucking Road.
I dunno, if I had to drive Rainbow Road to get to work in the morning I bet I wouldn't still be half-asleep when I walked into the office anymore. I'd have to modify my car to include a shell launcher though.
-
I dunno, if I had to drive Rainbow Road to get to work in the morning I bet I wouldn't still be half-asleep when I walked into the office anymore. I'd have to modify my car to include a shell launcher though.
Get the hell outta my way!
