The ethics of legal actions

[dorkvader]

This is an interesting topic. What sorts of legal actions are ethical?

If I am the owner of some information that I hold a copyright to, and someone has hosted it without permission, I should have the right to force them to take it down. But if that person isn't actually infringing on my copyright, it's also not okay to just take down my content.

So where's the middle ground? Take down everything and judge any complainers on a case-by-case basis? Take nothing down?

What currently counts as copyrightable? Should it count?

This is a good topic, feel free to discuss it here. In light of current events, I ask that everyone please remember to keep things civil. We don't want more drama and fighting back and forth.

[jdcarpe]

Technically, the author of any recorded work owns the copyright. The photographer owns his photos, the writer owns his novels, etc., unless there are other contractual agreements in play. Therefore, by extension, we can say that every forum member owns his own posts on the forum. However, by using the forum, you are effectively giving permission to the forum's owner, hosting provider, etc., to distribute that content as he/they see fit.

That said, a member who resorts to threatening legal action against other forum members or the forum owner/hosting provider, for displaying their posts in the same manner as every other post on the forum, is obviously trying to cover something. If I were the forum owner, and a member threatened me with legal action unless I removed forum content, I would permanently ban that member immediately, so that they could create no further content on the forum.

Also, moderators and administrators of the forum should not feel pressured to remove content at the request of a forum member, simply because that content is not favorable to that member. Forum posts serve as a kind of public record, and moderators should not feel obligated to "rewrite history," as it were.

Content hosting services, such as dropbox and imgur, will probably remove content that is in dispute of infringing copyright, until such time as they can make a determination as to whether the assumed "copyright holder" actually holds copyright over the material in question. Or they might just remove it arbitrarily, to make it easier on themselves. This makes it easy for someone to abuse the system. Someone can claim they hold copyright to someone else's hosted images, etc., and the hosting provider will most likely just remove them, whether the claimant actually holds copyright or not.

[Krogenar]

This is an interesting topic. What sorts of legal actions are ethical?

If I am the owner of some information that I hold a copyright to, and someone has hosted it without permission, I should have the right to force them to take it down. But if that person isn't actually infringing on my copyright, it's also not okay to just take down my content.

Ok, so let me repeat that back to make sure I understand. Someone has hosted the copyrighted works of another party without permission -- but that person may not be infringing upon their copyright? I don't think that can hold. Consider that the mere duplication of a copyrighted material is an infringement. Most people mistakenly believe that if you merely copy something that is copyrighted but not republish it or resell it, that you haven't broken copyright laws; this isn't true.

If you make a copy of something and you do not have express permission, that's copyright infringement.

As I understand it, the TOS explicitly states that all posts of all members become the property of GeekHack. I agreed to that. Everyone currently posting here has agreed to the TOS, so none of them can complain that their posts are a private work. This is a privately owned forum, not a publicly (government) owned forum. This is precisely why an individual can say a racist remark on a street corner and be thought merely a racist idiot, but to utter the same word on an American university campus will get you expelled. Colleges, as privately owned organizations that people voluntarily agree to attend, can have their own private speech codes.

GeekHack could declare that all members retain the rights to their own posts. But the owners don't do that because it would leave huge gaps in the forum if the content of banned or deleted users suddenly vanished with them.

So where's the middle ground? Take down everything and judge any complainers on a case-by-case basis? Take nothing down?

No, just make it as clear as possible that when you post here at GeekHack, that the content becomes property of the forum. This doesn't preclude someone from republishing their own comments elsewhere. What we're really talking about is whether individuals have the right to sabotage the forum after they choose to leave, or are expelled. It's like a woman who gets dumped wanting to get in a time machine, go back in time, and make sure the sex was always really, really lousy.

I wasn't around for Ripster, but from what I see he was a Keyboard Mad Scientist of Renown -- let's say he wrote the entire Geekhack Wiki himself; does (did) he have the right to take it all back in a huff? No. But he could have kept copies, and after the breakup he could republish them elsewhere.

What currently counts as copyrightable? Should it count?

If you publish something here at GH, it's owned by GH. It doesn't matter if it's a filthy limerick or a design for 'The Uber Key' that will revolutionize mechanical keyboarding. You're posting at a place that said: "If you post here, we retain the right to publish it." That means they can republish it in any way they see fit. The owners could take a particularly funny series of exchanges in a thread, pack them up as a book, and publish it. The original creator of the content can still leave in a huff and repost it somewhere else, however. They can certainly request that their content be removed, but GH should be in no way required to do so. The TOS were clear, and remain so. As far I know, this is the standard for forums everywhere.

This is a good topic, feel free to discuss it here. In light of current events, I ask that everyone please remember to keep things civil. We don't want more drama and fighting back and forth.

I don't know what event(s) transpired. What happened?

That said, a member who resorts to threatening legal action against other forum members or the forum owner/hosting provider, for displaying their posts in the same manner as every other post on the forum, is obviously trying to cover something. If I were the forum owner, and a member threatened me with legal action unless I removed forum content, I would permanently ban that member immediately, so that they could create no further content on the forum.

I agree.

[tjcaustin]

...Did I miss something important?

[esoomenona]

Technically, the author of any recorded work owns the copyright. The photographer owns his photos, the writer owns his novels, etc., unless there are other contractual agreements in play. Therefore, by extension, we can say that every forum member owns his own posts on the forum. However, by using the forum, you are effectively giving permission to the forum's owner, hosting provider, etc., to distribute that content as he/they see fit.

That said, a member who resorts to threatening legal action against other forum members or the forum owner/hosting provider, for displaying their posts in the same manner as every other post on the forum, is obviously trying to cover something. If I were the forum owner, and a member threatened me with legal action unless I removed forum content, I would permanently ban that member immediately, so that they could create no further content on the forum.

Also, moderators and administrators of the forum should not feel pressured to remove content at the request of a forum member, simply because that content is not favorable to that member. Forum posts serve as a kind of public record, and moderators should not feel obligated to "rewrite history," as it were.

Content hosting services, such as dropbox and imgur, will probably remove content that is in dispute of infringing copyright, until such time as they can make a determination as to whether the assumed "copyright holder" actually holds copyright over the material in question. Or they might just remove it arbitrarily, to make it easier on themselves. This makes it easy for someone to abuse the system. Someone can claim they hold copyright to someone else's hosted images, etc., and the hosting provider will most likely just remove them, whether the claimant actually holds copyright or not.

Boom.

[esoomenona]

Also, what's this crap about not being able to remove my own posts these days? When did this start?

[longweight]

...Did I miss something important?

http://geekhack.org/index.php?topic=39527.0
 
Read the DT, MMB / Brofist threatened to call the internet police on someone and had their Dropbox account frozen.

[jwaz]

Freeze! Cyber Police! Don't make us backtrace you!

[esoomenona]

Freeze! Cyber Police! Don't make us backtrace you!

Please ignore my prior goofing, sir.

[jdcarpe]

Freeze! Cyber Police! Don't make us backtrace you!

[Lanx]

are they syndicating your stuff? where's it come from? the source? if you're bored i guess you can check copyscape.com for your stuffs too.

[dorkvader]

This is an interesting topic. What sorts of legal actions are ethical?

If I am the owner of some information that I hold a copyright to, and someone has hosted it without permission, I should have the right to force them to take it down. But if that person isn't actually infringing on my copyright, it's also not okay to just take down my content.

Ok, so let me repeat that back to make sure I understand. Someone has hosted the copyrighted works of another party without permission -- but that person may not be infringing upon their copyright? I don't think that can hold. Consider that the mere duplication of a copyrighted material is an infringement. Most people mistakenly believe that if you merely copy something that is copyrighted but not republish it or resell it, that you haven't broken copyright laws; this isn't true.

Nothing so specific. I was saying simply that if you infringe on someone's copyright, they should have the right to have such infringement removed. If you do not infringe, they should not have the right to remove your material permanently. Clearly you can't infringe and not infringe at the same time.

If you make a copy of something and you do not have express permission, that's copyright infringement.

More specifically, if you make a copy of something that is copyrighted without permission, that is infringement. I can copy things without permission all day if they are not under copyright, or non-copyrightable. You raise a good point: even if I don't post said copy or make it available, it's still infringement.

As I understand it, the TOS explicitly states that all posts of all members become the property of GeekHack. I agreed to that. Everyone currently posting here has agreed to the TOS, so none of them can complain that their posts are a private work. This is a privately owned forum, not a publicly (government) owned forum. This is precisely why an individual can say a racist remark on a street corner and be thought merely a racist idiot, but to utter the same word on an American university campus will get you expelled. Colleges, as privately owned organizations that people voluntarily agree to attend, can have their own private speech codes.

GeekHack could declare that all members retain the rights to their own posts. But the owners don't do that because it would leave huge gaps in the forum if the content of banned or deleted users suddenly vanished with them.

A member would have a harder time bringing legal charges against the forum over some content.

So where's the middle ground? Take down everything and judge any complainers on a case-by-case basis? Take nothing down?

No, just make it as clear as possible that when you post here at GeekHack, that the content becomes property of the forum. This doesn't preclude someone from republishing their own comments elsewhere. What we're really talking about is whether individuals have the right to sabotage the forum after they choose to leave, or are expelled. It's like a woman who gets dumped wanting to get in a time machine, go back in time, and make sure the sex was always really, really lousy.

Again: I don't mean anything so specific. What I had in mind was for people to discuss the issue of dealing with copyright infringement claims, common as they are made. Discussing what that means for a forum, what that means for dropbox, what that means for torrent 'sites, etc. That's what I had in mind with that statement.

I wasn't around for Ripster, but from what I see he was a Keyboard Mad Scientist of Renown -- let's say he wrote the entire Geekhack Wiki himself; does (did) he have the right to take it all back in a huff? No. But he could have kept copies, and after the breakup he could republish them elsewhere.

I am not a lawyer, but I believe he is free to republish his own work elsewhere but not force us to take down any content that was posted here.

What currently counts as copyrightable? Should it count?

If you publish something here at GH, it's owned by GH. It doesn't matter if it's a filthy limerick or a design for 'The Uber Key' that will revolutionize mechanical keyboarding. You're posting at a place that said: "If you post here, we retain the right to publish it." That means they can republish it in any way they see fit. The owners could take a particularly funny series of exchanges in a thread, pack them up as a book, and publish it. The original creator of the content can still leave in a huff and repost it somewhere else, however. They can certainly request that their content be removed, but GH should be in no way required to do so. The TOS were clear, and remain so. As far I know, this is the standard for forums everywhere.

Again, I don't mean for this to be merely a discussion of how copyright law applies to posts here on GH. I agree with what you have to say, but if people want to not how it applies to other aspects of copyright law, please chime in.

That said, a member who resorts to threatening legal action against other forum members or the forum owner/hosting provider, for displaying their posts in the same manner as every other post on the forum, is obviously trying to cover something. If I were the forum owner, and a member threatened me with legal action unless I removed forum content, I would permanently ban that member immediately, so that they could create no further content on the forum.

I agree.

As far as I am currently aware, no currently registered full member of this forum has threatened legal action against GH.

[alaricljs]

Also, what's this crap about not being able to remove my own posts these days? When did this start?

It was being abused in such a way that DB corruption was becoming a concern.  If you have a goof post edit it to nothing.  If you have a goof topic, edit to a request for deletion and a mod will take care of it.

[IvanIvanovich]

Personally I believe the entire concept of copyright and IP is completely silly. You shared it, it is no longer yours. Once it is out, you are no longer in control of it. It becomes a life of it's own outside of the creators.

In the case of products, the system got totally basterdized and out of scope of it's original intention. There should not be the ability for infinite renewal. It need to go to public domain after an actual reasonable time (like 5 years) span to have a chance at return on effort. If one can't make any money by then, they probably won't anyway.

[Krogenar]

Ok, read through a bit of that huge DT post, and I have a question: is this link the page that caused MMB to call for a DMCA takedown notice?

http://pastehtml.com/view/cuhtc991b.html

If so, some observations:

Lin taobaoagent calls MMB a 'bad meatball', 'rotten', etc. -- this is directly insulting and slanderous and does not help his case. He could be 100% correct on the facts, but it's still defamatory. If MMB is running a business and someone tries to ruin his reputation, yeah, that's grounds for a lawsuit. If Lin had left out all the insults, then we'd be debating the facts. Also, in order to prove defamation legally, you must legally prove that your reputation is, in fact, valuable. If MMB made $425 this year on the basis of his reputation, well, that's not much of a reputation. He's not going to be crushed financially because someone says 'this meatball is rotten'. Is MMB that big a player? Also, you would have to prove in court that the allegedly slanderous statements actually had a negative effect. If you can prove that most people had not read these potentially slanderous remarks, then there's not enough damage to say that slander has occurred.

So, first you've got to have a reputation to damage, and then significant damage occurred. I don't think that's the case here.

Then MMB himself, over at DT states the following:

Just wanted to chime in here, and let you know that the takedown request was for the removal of photos and personal information.

If personal information was posted without your consent, you would probably feel the same way. I have no problem with any other content related to the incident being here. If I posted your private address, full name and other private information, you wouldn't appreciate that, and would most likely request I remove it.

I am sure you will continue to march around with your pitchforks over this, but it was a small issue that was settled a long time back. But apparently, trolls would rather see it continue.

Out.

I have to agree. When it comes to privacy, American law hinges on whether privacy can be expected. Here's how it works. I'm walking down Main Street in a neon green fishnet bodysuit, my body coated in a thin layer of sunbathing oil, while eating a pepperoni HotPocket. I am subsequently photographed, and my photo goes onto the front page of the newspaper, the headline reading: "BIGFOOT SPOTTED ON MAINSTREET" -- I then find this extremely embarassing and demand that the photo be taken down, as it will seriously hurt my ministry. Well? Do I have a right to privacy? No, I don't -- not on a public street.

Were I to do the same thing in my front yard, which has only a white picket fence, which provides absolutely no visual cover, would the publication of those photos still be an invasion of my privacy? No, because anyone could just walk along and see me without trying very hard! I might claim that I was on my private property, but since I was in full view of everyone I should have no expectation of privacy.

Now, if I was doing all this behind closed doors in my house with a huge security fence and tall hedges, and someone with a mega-telephoto lens camera zoomed through a crack in the curtains and photographed me, then yes, I would have a case in court, as I expected to have some privacy, and took steps to secure it.

So: do forum members at GH have an expectation of privacy? How many people on GH use their full names as their forum handle? I'm guessing zero. So there's some expectation of privacy. If you post someone's home address and phone number, that's probably not right. If it isn't mentioned in the TOS, then it should be, and it should not be allowed. Lin took a private problem and made it public; maybe that was not wise.

[Krogenar]

Personally I believe the entire concept of copyright and IP is completely silly. You shared it, it is no longer yours. Once it is out, you are no longer in control of it. It becomes a life of it's own outside of the creators.

No, I support Intellectual Property Rights because without them the incentive to risk time and money on a new idea, process or product is lost, or very greatly reduced. Were it not for copyright laws musicians would still be just singing for their meals, instead of singing for cocaine, another trophy wife, mansions and sponsorship rights. Go back a few hundred years and musicians and performers were people who did what they did and scraped by. Now they can actually own the products of their own mind, and get paid every time someone finds it useful. I think that's awesome.

In the case of products, the system got totally basterdized and out of scope of it's original intention. There should not be the ability for infinite renewal. It need to go to public domain after an actual reasonable time (like 5 years) span to have a chance at return on effort. If one can't make any money by then, they probably won't anyway.

Five years?! No, I respectfully disagree. The law requires that you actually use the copyrighted material in some way. You don't have to make a profit, but you have to continue to try. Hence, The Smurfs Movie, The Battleship Movie (starring Rihanna), etc. -- use it or lose it. So if the maximum amount of time I have to make something profitable is a mere five years, then everyone would make some crap, hope it sticks, and then immediately abandon it. What would the Star Wars or Star Trek franchises look like today if they had gone public domain in a scant five years? A mish-mash of colliding, confusing, bad movies. If someone could have made a sequel to the original Star Wars just five years after it's release, how would a consumer know which was the sequel made by the original creators? They wouldn't -- it would just be chaos, which is bad for business, and bad for the consumer.

Instead, if someone has a successful idea they can take the time to monetize it properly. Creators of media are more likely to take care with their media if they know they can make a profit by doing so. I know that it just kills some people on the inside when other people make money, but too bad, get a helmet.

[Glod]

I've always been surprised that so many tech savvy people always rip on intellectual property rights.

If intellectual property rights were denied soon after you share a creation then this world would lack innovation and artists. Protection is common sense.

Sure there is some trolling out there and some stupid stuff but overall it has benefited us greatly. We are not a perfect society and honestly I don't want to live in a world that is.

Again, there is some really stupid stuff going on, especially when it comes to big media conglomerates going after small households and some patent wars are a bit nasty. But wouldn't you guys rather individuals and organizations come up with things that are better and things that are new instead of the same thing iterated over and over?

Inspiration is fine though and in my opinion there is an obvious difference between inspiration and copying. Many in this community appreciate originality; its perfectly reasonable that creations that took a large amount of time to create be protected from those that will spend a small fraction of that time making a copy and making more off copying it than coming up with an original idea.

edit forgot to finish:
I also find it reasonable for people to want to use intellectual property rights to prevent others harming one's brand or image. Creative ideas benefit sometimes when they stay--trying to find the right way to say it--in context.