Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=17632&print=yes

Has anyone come across this before? Every time I visit KMC from work I have to search 'killermovies forums' in the Google search box so that the url doesn't appear in the drop down and get me caught, and recently I've noticed around 3 results down the above url. Today I decided to take a look. Makes hardly any sense to me, but I wondered if anyone has seen it before or could possibly explain it?

Thanks

yeah, it means someone is piffed at us about something and instead of confronting the issue in private, it gets posted on the internet where everyone can see it.

The post is from 2006 but edited now...

Originally posted by Darth Demise
yeah, it means someone is piffed at us about something and instead of confronting the issue in private, it gets posted on the internet where everyone can see it.

So nothing really comes of making a fuss?

Originally posted by Syren
So nothing really comes of making a fuss?

Someone probably posted a picture or video of copyrighted material and they want it taken off.


After reading, it actually says what was copied. Barker posted it crylaugh

Link isnt working, was just some mathematical equations and theories.

Have there been other complaints like this before on KMC?

The material was removed after a DMCA takedown notice, avoiding the possibility of a lawsuit for money damages.

As far as I know KMC remains free for anyone. We're not paying to join.

What money are they going to get out of us?

*breaks piggy bank*

All the illegal comics and links posted, THATS complained about??

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As far as I know KMC remains free for anyone. We're not paying to join.

What money are they going to get out of us?

*breaks piggy bank*

The sight owner, Raz, receives money for the advertisements put up on this site.

Because the the sheer volume that occurs on these boards, Raz is compensated a significant amount of money. The more volume, the more that can be charged to advertisers for their milk adds and such. Being number 90 on teh internets should be netting Raz a significant amount of money.

My coworker (the washed up cellist), used to own his own site and it received a limited, yet adequate volume. He got about $300 a month for his website in advertisements AFTER expenses. The advertisements were not anywhere the big names that we see here.

Originally posted by Troop
All the illegal comics and links posted, THATS complained about??

marvel and dc probably have better things to do than target their most supportive fan base...

Originally posted by Troop
All the illegal comics and links posted, THATS complained about??

Some copyright breaches actually help more than hinder. Most things are actionable against the site as well as the users, which is why back when Czarina was libelling Prince, the moderators should have taken it a bit more seriously. Shocking that they seem to be unaware of that.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Some copyright breaches actually help more than hinder. Most things are actionable against the site as well as the users, which is why back when Czarina was libelling Prince, the moderators should have taken it a bit more seriously. Shocking that they seem to be unaware of that. But that's just cause Prince raped a young boy who is now living on the street. Jimbo Jones or something.

It's fair copyright, we make no money from them and the site makes no money so really KMC did nothing wrong.

Originally posted by Neo Darkhalen
It's fair copyright, we make no money from them and the site makes no money so really KMC did nothing wrong.

Copyright infringement is not reliant on whether or not someone is making money off of it.

I meant the fair copyright laws and..........nevermind.

you mean fair use

which it isn't, because posting something on the internet is legally defined as distributing

copyright laws say that only the copyright holder has the right to distribute their product. By posting/hosting a copyright item on the internet, you are removing that right from the copyright holder, and thus dismissing their right to profit from the distribution of their work.

not that I agree entirely, that is the law however

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As far as I know KMC remains free for anyone. We're not paying to join.

What money are they going to get out of us?

*breaks piggy bank*

The site administrators and moderators could be charged with vicarious infringement, and the site members could be charged with contributory infringement.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The site administrators and moderators could be charged with vicarious infringement, and the site members could be charged with contributory infringement.

Interesting....

...

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
As far as I know KMC remains free for anyone. We're not paying to join.

What money are they going to get out of us?

*breaks piggy bank* They'll come right into your house and get you...take you away....I'll miss you.....crybaby

Jail food sure is shitty.






Nooooooooooooooooo.......I don't want to die...

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Some copyright breaches actually help more than hinder. Most things are actionable against the site as well as the users, which is why back when Czarina was libelling Prince, the moderators should have taken it a bit more seriously. Shocking that they seem to be unaware of that. Though many things are taken tongue and cheek...

Originally posted by Deja~vu
They'll come right into your house and get you...take you away....I'll miss you.....crybaby

Jail food sure is shitty.



I'm gonna miss you too.

Oh, well, Mad Dog will keep me warm at night.


*brrrr*

But you have to pay big time with that in very special ways...........

You won't be the same anymore.......cry

Someones taking law classes..........Is someone using Lexis or Westlaw........LOL

I read this crap all the time.....lol

Then you have the "Storage Communication Act"

Ah, DC should STFU, the amount of Hellblazer comics I bought because of KMC makes up for anything they lost twice over...

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Someones taking law classes..........

I read this crap all the time.....lol Which is odd, as you don't show any talent in reading plain text, let alone lawyer gibberish.

What the "F" happened to my post. I posted more then this smilie.??

Actually, Troop (an AJ sock) was just trying to cause a stir. Posting issues of comics was banned as a practice on KMC quite a while ago. The respect forum has feats posted, but they are removed from theri context so reading a story is impossible. If the companies are miffed about "Hey, here's what {insert character} can do!" then that is another matter, though it's hard to imagine why they would be, as they serve to inform people about characters without posting issues, likely resulting in an increase of sales. But KMC doesn't contribute to a loss in comic sales by any of its practices.

The illegal downloading that was mentioned does not and cannot occur on KMC, and we have no jurisdiction on outside websites, so that isn't our concern. Any threads created about it are closed, however, since the practice is not condoned.

Troop is awesome. I don't think he's an AJ sock. Though I don't know, never really talked to AJ.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Actually, Troop (an AJ sock) was just trying to cause a stir. Posting issues of comics was banned as a practice on KMC quite a while ago. The respect thread has feats posted, but they are removed from theri context so reading a story is impossible. If the companies are miffed about "Hey, here's what {insert character} can do!" then that is another matter, though it's hard to imagine why they would be, as they serve to inform people about characters without posting issues, likely resulting in an increase of sales. But KMC doesn't contribute to a loss in comic sales by any of its practices.

The illegal downloading that was mentioned does not and cannot occur on KMC, and we have no jurisdiction on outside websites, so that isn't our concern. Any threads created about it are closed, however, since the practice is not condoned.

As for the illegal downloading thing - personally, in the video game forums, I do not allow any discussion of illegal downloads whatsoever, as to avoid the entire mess that could come from someone getting the idea that we condone that sort of behaviour.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Troop is awesome. I don't think he's an AJ sock. Though I don't know, never really talked to AJ. Yeah, you're god, you'd know for sure...
Don't make me come down there.

-God

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Yeah, you're god, you'd know for sure...
Don't make me come down there.

-God STFU.

Originally posted by Bardock42
STFU.

Got to love ya..

-God

p.s...I'm supposed too.....what the heck was I thinkin.

Originally posted by Deja~vu


Got to love ya..

-God

p.s...I'm supposed too.....what the heck was I thinkin. Woman, you make no sense. At first I thought you improved, but Christ you behave half as intelligent as before you left.

You're hurting my cells.

think big and small..Micro and Macro........ouchies!

In your country they have lands for cultivation right? Go cultivate something.

Guys, take it somewhere else. It's both spam and annoying at this point.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Guys, take it somewhere else. It's both spam and annoying at this point. I'm not a guy........but otay.

-God.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The site administrators and moderators could be charged with vicarious infringement, and the site members could be charged with contributory infringement.

Hahahaha! Scaremongering...

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The site administrators and moderators could be charged with vicarious infringement, and the site members could be charged with contributory infringement. Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hahahaha! Scaremongering... Fight! Fight! Fight!


...

Originally posted by LastdaysofKMC
Question: What are the criteria a service provider must satisfy in order to qualify for safe harbor protection under Subsection 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

I wonder how "g" fits in with the comic respect forum scans. As they may be hosted elsewhere but they are longterm linked to here

Context and scans are present there..... Which as it gives a plot outline and often the best sequence of images; For some this makes buying the comic redundant and opens a whole another set of questions. I'm sure Raz has it all sorted though.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects internet service providers and search engines, not the sites they host or link to.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hahahaha! Scaremongering...

Yet, true.

Very much not true at all. Just scaremongering to be paid no heed. No such thing will ever happen.

Whew.........I don't want to take showers with naked women.

....Non?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Very much not true at all. Just scaremongering to be paid no heed. No such thing will ever happen.

Internet ambulance chasers if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Whew.........I don't want to take showers with naked women.



Are you mad?

Why? You want to take a naked shower with me??

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Why? You want to take a naked shower with me??

You got me

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Why? You want to take a naked shower with me?? There are madness on multiple levels. One could very well consider suddenly mentioning that to be madnss.

Originally posted by Syren
You got me Let's not tease them. They do rocks and trees ya know..


Okay, imagine this...a man with no arms...........lol



sorry.

really sorry.

dude, people have been quoting me for years at this place. Maybe, i should sue and make a big deal out of it too.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Though many things are taken tongue and cheek...

Shut up.

Adam PoE should really qualify his opinion, because until he shows how and why anything negative would occur, just saying that it will happen is a toothless argument, and is the scaremongering he is accused of. The few instances where there has been a brief issue, KMC was contacted, the posts in question were removed, and nothing bad came of it. We take proactive steps toward preventing such occurrences (like banning issue posting in the comic forums months/years ago before this was ever brought into question) as well as establishing rules about copyright infringement and post editing among the mods.

To insinuate that anything different will happen in the future bears the burden of proof. So until such evidence comes to light, not only would I second Ush's accusation of fearmongering on PoE's part, but I would also question the motives for such bold assertions, since general rumor-based panic is quite easy to stir on internet sites.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Shut up. Sorry that you viewed that sexually.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Adam PoE should really qualify his opinion, because until he shows how and why anything negative would occur, just saying that it will happen is a toothless argument, and is the scaremongering he is accused of.

Agreed.



Oh, but here is the thing. He never did. He clearly said "could be", which is probably legally true. He never said anything of the likelihood of such an event, so really, you guys should maybe get off his case here.

You could be raped and killed if you leave your house.

Just sayin'.

Originally posted by BackFire
You could be raped and killed if you leave your house.

Just sayin'. Not comparable. WD was implying that no one could be sued, especially not for money, as KMC is free. That's obviously incorrect. I am sure Adam agrees that the likelihood of members or moderators actually being sued is small.

You're reading too much into it.

I just wanted to bring rape into the thread.

You're secretly thanking me. I know it.

Originally posted by BackFire
You're reading too much into it.

I just wanted to bring rape into the thread.

You're secretly thanking me. I know it. True enough, I shall extend the rape analogy.

It's like someone saying:

"I can't get raped, because I am wearing a digital watch"

And Adam replying

"You could still get raped"

And Ush saying

"This's some whack fearmongering goin' on in da house"

But it really isn't, is it?


(captured Ush's posting style flawlessly, I may add)

Originally posted by BackFire
You could be raped and killed if you leave your house.

Which is why I always make a point of announcing every time I exit my home. Delicious, delicious raep.

Digital watches can prevent rape, though.

I'm now not going to prove this because I said "can" instead of "will" and so I shouldn't have to.

Originally posted by BackFire
Digital watches can prevent rape, though.

I'm now not going to prove this because I said "can" instead of "will" and so I shouldn't have to.

I think you'd have to prove it either way, really. Though, not to me, I already am a believer in the protective abilities of digital watches. Also, guns.

No, not guns. Watches.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, not guns. Watches. Yeah...watches.



And guns.

You're not understanding me.

Watches, not guns.

Knives though, those things just cause trouble.

Originally posted by Bardock42
WD was implying that no one could be sued, especially not for money, as KMC is free. That's obviously incorrect. I am sure Adam agrees that the likelihood of members or moderators actually being sued is small.


Your avatar is out of order. It offends me so much..that is causing me stress. Therefore you will cause a major International Incident....better be sorry!

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Your avatar is out of order. It offends me so much..that is causing me stress. Therefore you will cause a major International Incident....better be sorry!

Would be funny if World War 3 was caused by a German as well.

Oh, the flag is burning LOL.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Very much not true at all. Just scaremongering to be paid no heed. No such thing will ever happen.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Adam PoE should really qualify his opinion, because until he shows how and why anything negative would occur, just saying that it will happen is a toothless argument, and is the scaremongering he is accused of. The few instances where there has been a brief issue, KMC was contacted, the posts in question were removed, and nothing bad came of it. We take proactive steps toward preventing such occurrences (like banning issue posting in the comic forums months/years ago before this was ever brought into question) as well as establishing rules about copyright infringement and post editing among the mods.

To insinuate that anything different will happen in the future bears the burden of proof. So until such evidence comes to light, not only would I second Ush's accusation of fearmongering on PoE's part, but I would also question the motives for such bold assertions, since general rumor-based panic is quite easy to stir on internet sites.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, but here is the thing. He never did. He clearly said "could be", which is probably legally true. He never said anything of the likelihood of such an event, so really, you guys should maybe get off his case here.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not comparable. WD was implying that no one could be sued, especially not for money, as KMC is free. That's obviously incorrect. I am sure Adam agrees that the likelihood of members or moderators actually being sued is small.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Agreed.



Oh, but here is the thing. He never did. He clearly said "could be", which is probably legally true. He never said anything of the likelihood of such an event, so really, you guys should maybe get off his case here.

No it is not legally true, hence it being scaremongering. He is distorting and mis-representing just for shock value, and so your defence of him is unseemly.

His mention of 'moderators' for example is a complete red herring. There is absolutely no legal difference between a moderator and a poster in any of these instances. The only legal difference is with the site owner, and even then he wouldn't face charges of the sort Adam outlines, even if he didn't always comply with all legal processes, which of course he does.

He throws around terms ignorantly. 'Vicarious infringment' could not possibly apply; that only applies if the person made financial gain out of failing to prevent something to happen, which in this respect is gibberish.

Indeed the lack of finanical interest on anyone's part (except for possibly Raz, who, again, complies with all legal processes, and trying to prove he directly benefits from such things is pretty much impossible) is so vital to the matter, and such an important point in what Adam said being nonsense, that it does indeed mean that WD's commentary was entirely correct, and your commentary saying it was wrong, bardock, is in fact wrong itself.

No, what he said was pure ignorant scaremongering, and your defence of him is just defence of something that was plain wrong., and hence you should come in the firing line also.

Posts like that one Adam made are very questionable indeed; I can have nothing more than contempt for such things (and their defenders). Putting around the idea that indirect copyright infringement has been occurring here is laughable- hence my original response to it.

The only thing that has ever POSSIBLY occurred for someone to say "Oh, they COULD be sued for that..." (pointless statement though that is, if it is not going to happen, and still just scaremongering anyway) is the direct infringement done by the people who posted the material, and in al circumstances here that is some of the pettiest and most generally irrelevant stuff you will see.

Originally posted by Peach
As for the illegal downloading thing - personally, in the video game forums, I do not allow any discussion of illegal downloads whatsoever, as to avoid the entire mess that could come from someone getting the idea that we condone that sort of behaviour.

Fair enough

Originally posted by Troop
All the illegal comics and links posted, THATS complained about??

Yes. yes it is........

Buh-bye! wave

I ask a serious question and I get picked out, nice.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act protects internet service providers and search engines, not the sites they host or link to.

Strange... I thought most sites had a safeharbour page.

Moving on, hyperlinking and thumbnails are also theft.

I think a thumbnail which is a permanent image on a site is... interesting.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No it is not legally true, hence it being scaremongering. He is distorting and mis-representing just for shock value, and so your defence of him is unseemly.

His mention of 'moderators' for example is a complete red herring. There is absolutely no legal difference between a moderator and a poster in any of these instances. The only legal difference is with the site owner, and even then he wouldn't face charges of the sort Adam outlines, even if he didn't always comply with all legal processes, which of course he does.

He throws around terms ignorantly. 'Vicarious infringment' could not possibly apply; that only applies if the person made financial gain out of failing to prevent something to happen, which in this respect is gibberish.

Indeed the lack of finanical interest on anyone's part (except for possibly Raz, who, again, complies with all legal processes, and trying to prove he directly benefits from such things is pretty much impossible) is so vital to the matter, and such an important point in what Adam said being nonsense, that it does indeed mean that WD's commentary was entirely correct, and your commentary saying it was wrong, bardock, is in fact wrong itself.

No, what he said was pure ignorant scaremongering, and your defence of him is just defence of something that was plain wrong., and hence you should come in the firing line also.

Posts like that one Adam made are very questionable indeed; I can have nothing more than contempt for such things (and their defenders). Putting around the idea that indirect copyright infringement has been occurring here is laughable- hence my original response to it.

The only thing that has ever POSSIBLY occurred for someone to say "Oh, they COULD be sued for that..." (pointless statement though that is, if it is not going to happen, and still just scaremongering anyway) is the direct infringement done by the people who posted the material, and in al circumstances here that is some of the pettiest and most generally irrelevant stuff you will see. Fair enough, if it is wrong it is wrong. So far neither of you has really proven anything though and it is just a pissing contest who can scream louder "I KNOW THE LAW BETTER".

It's still not scaremongering though, that's factually wrong on your part. Even if he made a mistake (and I am not sure if he did since you both are just talking) he wasn't trying to scare anyone, nor did his posts in any way imply that we are in imminent danger.

So, instead of just being dismissive and insulting towards him, you could have just said "No, that's not correct, because of ....", instead, dare I say it again, you just ridiculed him and his post.

Also, he didn't say "There have been thins on KMC going on that could be legally relevant", he said "There could be things going on on KMC that could be legally relevant"...again very different...

Bardock is made of greatness.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE


Well then you could have stated it the way bardock did, rather than scaremongering by insinuating that it is a real possibility. KMC's a responsible site and your posts were both uninformed and irresponsible.

I don't understand which part was fearmongering?

Originally posted by Devil King
I don't understand which part was fearmongering? There wasn't any. Don't worry.

Originally posted by Devil King
I don't understand which part was fearmongering?

The part where his posts directly implied that KMC could and probably would incur legal penalties for....well, he never really stated what it was. He just made the claim without providing justification. Others stated it much more reasonably, in accord with both reason and the evidence available to us (or lack thereof as the case may be).

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The part where his posts directly implied that KMC could and probably would incur legal penalties for....well, he never really stated what it was. He just made the claim without providing justification. Others stated it much more reasonably, in accord with both reason and the evidence available to us (or lack thereof as the case may be). Yeah, again, that part doesn't exist. He never implied it in any way...

I agree with Digi here (wow, shocker) and I will add the following...

...not everyone keeps a lawyer in their pocket. By default, I'm not aware of my legal rights.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Our system rules!

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf


Our system rules!

Or does not, depending on the parts we two don't know about, eh? eh?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Or does not, depending on the parts we two don't know about, eh? eh?

Bardock, do you ever shut up?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Or does not, depending on the parts we two don't know about, eh? eh?

Don't mess with me....I watch Matlock and Perry Mason on TV.


Gosh...you might be too young to know them. ermm

Oh well, watch Law & Order.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
Bardock, do you ever shut up? Yeah, in fact I didn't talk a word all day. Why?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Don't mess with me....I watch Matlock and Perry Mason on TV.


Gosh...you might be too young to know them. ermm

Oh well, watch Law & Order. I love Matlock. He's old and shit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, again, that part doesn't exist. He never implied it in any way...

This frames my opinion well:

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The only thing that has ever POSSIBLY occurred for someone to say "Oh, they COULD be sued for that..." (pointless statement though that is, if it is not going to happen, and still just scaremongering anyway)

I understand that his post said "could" not "would, will, etc." But Adam hasn't clarified himself, hasn't provided means by which he believes it could happen, and hasn't responded to claims to the contrary except to say "Ha, I said could."

The word "could" is a wonderful escape route for him since, hell, I "could" be an alien, or we "could" {insert nearly anything}. But nothing in Adam's words leads me to believe he presented it as a rational appraisal of the situation. Rather, he threw it out as an unqualified opinion intended to scare. If you feel otherwise, that's fine. I won't argue further semantics with you, and you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But I think it's obvious that his intention wasn't to provide constructive commentary, and thus feel like the comments were both ignorant and irresponsible until he shows me otherwise.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, in fact I didn't talk a word all day. Why?

Good.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
This frames my opinion well:



I understand that his post said "could" not "would, will, etc." But Adam hasn't clarified himself, hasn't provided means by which he believes it could happen, and hasn't responded to claims to the contrary except to say "Ha, I said could."

The word "could" is a wonderful escape route for him since, hell, I "could" be an alien, or we "could" {insert nearly anything}. But nothing in Adam's words leads me to believe he presented it as a rational appraisal of the situation. Rather, he threw it out as an unqualified opinion intended to scare. If you feel otherwise, that's fine. I won't argue further semantics with you, and you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But I think it's obvious that his intention wasn't to provide constructive commentary, and thus feel like the comments were both ignorant and irresponsible until he shows me otherwise. Just not the same thing.

Someone said it's impossible to get sued. He said it is legally possible. That's all. Might be wrong, might be right, doesn't matter, is not fearmongering.

So, what colour are we up to on the KMC terror alert chart?

Mauve

Originally posted by Deja~vu



That's....just.....gross...

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Whew.........I don't want to take showers with naked women.

...where's the problem with that again?

Originally posted by Syren


I know I know..

"Boys will be boys".

I got my answers, plus a lot more. As usual

laughcry

Its odd that they went after KMC. yeah I know its copyright. They must have been bored or something.

Interesting thread.

WrathfulDwarf stated hypothetically, that members could not be financially responsible for copyright infringement that occurs on the site, because members do not directly benefit from infringing the work.

This is not correct. One needs to financially benefit from infringing the work to be responsible for actual damages. However, one needs only to infringe the work to be responsible for statutory damages.

A site administrator could be responsible for vicarious infringement, because he can control access to the site; a site moderator could be responsible for vicarious infringement, because he can supervise the infringing activity; and a site member could be responsible for contributory infringement, because he has knowledge of, or because he materially contributed to the infringing activity.

I did not state that copyright infringement is occurring on the site; that if copyright infringement had occurred on the site, that the necessary measures had not been taken to resolve the issue; or that litigation is imminent. I simply corrected WrathfulDwarf regarding his misunderstanding of copyright law.

yeah......so translate that for those of us with ADD
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Originally posted by Darth Demise
yeah......so translate that for those of us with ADD
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Copyright law.

They say bad used.

Raz say okay.

Problem gone now.

Susquehanna!

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Susquehanna!

What does that mean?

Originally posted by Eon Blue
What does that mean?

I assume he is referring to the river.


It plays a role in American History including the Latter Day Saints.

Originally posted by Eon Blue
What does that mean?

Dunno. I heard someone use it. Seemed like an appropriately ADD non sequiter.

Good luck with that.

Originally posted by Dur Greatest
Good luck with that. Yeah, unlikely, though obviously deserved.

I wonder if Adam Poe got permission to use those Planet Terror pictures from Tarantino or Rodriguez. Since he didn't pay for them.

That could be illegal. hmm





(LOLOLOLOL DID U GET ONE FROM BATMAN, WD? LOLOLOLO BBQSAUCE)

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I wonder if Adam Poe got permission to use those Planet Terror pictures from Tarantino or Rodriguez. Since he didn't pay for them.

That could be illegal. hmm





(LOLOLOLOL DID U GET ONE FROM BATMAN, WD? LOLOLOLO BBQSAUCE) Ban him just for good measure.


I personally asked Penn and Teller to use their quote and asked the stars and stripes whether I could burn it and take a picture. I got mah bases covereded.

Originally posted by Bardock42


I personally asked Penn and Teller to use their quote and asked the stars and stripes whether I could burn it and take a picture. I got mah bases covereded.

Think you smart?

Well, I'm going to go see The Dark Knight and I'm goint to pay a movie ticket. That entitles me to borrow the images to promote the film.

So...I should be paid for advertising. Hahah! BOOYAH!

I simply kill people before I use their copyrighted material.

Originally posted by BackFire
I simply kill people before I use their copyrighted material.

What a waste. You I rape them to death and THEN take what I need.


Learn how to be more efficient...noob.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What a waste. You I rape them to death and THEN take what I need.


Learn how to be more efficient...noob.

I thought that first part didn't need to be said. You know me, I'm not wasteful.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I wonder if Adam Poe got permission to use those Planet Terror pictures from Tarantino or Rodriguez. Since he didn't pay for them.

That could be illegal. hmm

I do not ask, I just take.

Haha, bottom.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Haha, bottom.

Sometimes, not always.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Sometimes, not always. Of course, sometimes "You don't ask, you just give"...

Bardock is a power bottom.

Originally posted by BackFire
Bardock is a power bottom. Damn right.

Wait, what?

Originally posted by BackFire
Bardock is a power bottom.

Is there where its shaved and he farts?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is there where its shaved and he farts?

Why must you ruin funny?

Originally posted by BackFire
Why must you ruin funny? It's his trade. If he didn't, who would?

Originally posted by BackFire
Why must you ruin funny?


It was a legit question. I found my answer...you big meanie!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=power+bottom

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's his trade. If he didn't, who would? Me.

Frankly, just about every single person on this site violates copyright with their signatures/avatars. And no, WD, buying a ticket to see a movie doesn't grant you the right to use a copyrighted image

And as for the "mods could be held responsible" thing...has anyone noticed the big disclaimer in the rules that basically covers just that?

I wonder how far that disclaimer matters.

Originally posted by Peach
Frankly, just about every single person on this site violates copyright with their signatures/avatars. And no, WD, buying a ticket to see a movie doesn't grant you the right to use a copyrighted image

And as for the "mods could be held responsible" thing...has anyone noticed the big disclaimer in the rules that basically covers just that?

It doesn't cover it if:

A) an incident has been brought to the moderations attentions and they have done nothing about it.

or

B) The moderator is the person disscusing warez, downloaded T.V. shows films, sending comics to people using an electronic transmission stystem etc, etc.

Originally posted by Dur Greatest
It doesn't cover it if:

A) an incident has been brought to the moderations attentions and they have done nothing about it.

or

B) The moderator is the person disscusing warez, downloaded T.V. shows films, sending comics to people using an electronic transmission stystem etc, etc.

What laws is all that stuff we are talking about based on anyways?

Well, this is the relevant bits:





Originally posted by Dur Greatest
It doesn't cover it if:

A) an incident has been brought to the moderations attentions and they have done nothing about it.

or

B) The moderator is the person disscusing warez, downloaded T.V. shows films, sending comics to people using an electronic transmission stystem etc, etc.

A is covered, and B would be irrelevant unless it occurred when the moderator was posting in their capacity as a mod.

Originally posted by Peach
Well, this is the relevant bits:







A is covered, and B would be irrelevant unless it occurred when the moderator was posting in their capacity as a mod.

The point is, if A has been ignored.... Does it have to be the company that reports initially an offending post? No, if an offending post has been identified and not removed and the company the post breaches copyright of later finds some third party had previously informed KMC of said post.... I think you see where that goes.

B) If the person posting is a mod. They are a representitive of KMC on the site. Regardless of what they are doing. Possibly.

This is all quite useless if your not doing anything about it.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
WrathfulDwarf stated hypothetically, that members could not be financially responsible for copyright infringement that occurs on the site, because members do not directly benefit from infringing the work.

This is not correct. One needs to financially benefit from infringing the work to be responsible for actual damages. However, one needs only to infringe the work to be responsible for statutory damages.

A site administrator could be responsible for vicarious infringement, because he can control access to the site; a site moderator could be responsible for vicarious infringement, because he can supervise the infringing activity; and a site member could be responsible for contributory infringement, because he has knowledge of, or because he materially contributed to the infringing activity.

I did not state that copyright infringement is occurring on the site; that if copyright infringement had occurred on the site, that the necessary measures had not been taken to resolve the issue; or that litigation is imminent. I simply corrected WrathfulDwarf regarding his misunderstanding of copyright law.

Apology? When YOU are still spreading lies? That is breathtaking- you should be ashamed.

You are still talking absolute nonsense about vicarious infringement. The very definition of vicarious infringement- if you care to go look it up- is that the person must be making financial gain from it. That is absolutely VITAL to it- statutory or otherwise. it is part of the definition of 'vicarious'. It is a law designed to hold accountable those who indirectly profit from copyright abuse (e.g, owning a market where such stuff is traded and hence gaining from it and then trying to claim that you didn't know the stuff was being sold by the individual stallholder; as you made money from it, and had the ability to stop it, you are still liable.) That is the only way in which it ever holds. You must be making money.

And there is absolutely no way any member or moderator here could be held liable for it. That is totally untrue, and all you are doing but stating such ignorant gibberish is causing unnecessary alarm.

Any of this talk about mods being held accountable for failing to stop is is absolute bollocks. The only way a mod could be clocked is if he actively encouraged it, which is a different matter altogether, and in which respect the mod is no different from a private poster doing the same thing.

Once more- the only person on this entire site to which there are different rules is Raz because he does make money. But a. he doesn't make any money from any copyright infringement and b. he always acts on such things once informed, the two of which between them covers every conceivable scenario (seeing as in all forms other than vicarious you are not liable if you did not know it was there, and in vicarious you are not liable if not profiting).

And so, once more, WD was right to point out we are not making money, because that does indeed remove any possible liability in the circumstances described.

Stop spreading this nonsense, Adam. You are the only one who should be apologising for such reckless commentary.

Originally posted by smashyou
This is all quite useless if your not doing anything about it.

Exactly. Reports of copyright breaches should be acted upon.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Apology? When YOU are still spreading lies? That is breahtaking- you should be ashamed.

You are still talking absolute nonsense about vicarious infringement. The very definition of vicarious infringement- if you care to go look it up- is that the person must be making financial gain from it. That is absolutely VITAL to it- statutory or otherwise. it is part of the definition of 'vicarious'. ity is a law designed to hold accountable those who indirectly benefit from copyright abuse (e.g, owning a market where such stuff is traded and hence gaining from it) and then trying to claim that you didn't know the stuff was being sold by the individual stallholder; as you made money from it, and had the ability to stop it, you are still liable. That is theonly way in which it ever holds. You must be making money.

And there is absolutely no way any member or moderator here could be held liable for it. That is totally untrue, and all you are doing but stating such ignorant gibberish is causing unnecessary alarm.

Stop spreading this nonsense.


Does KMC have a safeharbour page or an agreement to post pictures from the upcoming Dark Knight movie; Pictures which all other websites have been asked to remove. It would be quite exciting if this is the case and KMC has an exclusive!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Apology? When YOU are still spreading lies? That is breathtaking- you should be ashamed.

You are still talking absolute nonsense about vicarious infringement. The very definition of vicarious infringement- if you care to go look it up- is that the person must be making financial gain from it. That is absolutely VITAL to it- statutory or otherwise. it is part of the definition of 'vicarious'. It is a law designed to hold accountable those who indirectly profit from copyright abuse (e.g, owning a market where such stuff is traded and hence gaining from it and then trying to claim that you didn't know the stuff was being sold by the individual stallholder; as you made money from it, and had the ability to stop it, you are still liable.) That is the only way in which it ever holds. You must be making money.

And there is absolutely no way any member or moderator here could be held liable for it. That is totally untrue, and all you are doing but stating such ignorant gibberish is causing unnecessary alarm.

Any of this talk about mods being held accountable for failing to stop is is absolute bollocks. The only way a mod could be clocked is if he actively encouraged it, which is a different matter altogether, and in which respect the mod is no different from a private poster doing the same thing.

Once more- the only person on this entire site to which there are different rules is Raz because he does make money. But a. he doesn't make any money from any copyright infringement and b. he always acts on such things once informed, the two of which between them covers every conceivable scenario (seeing as in all forms other than vicarious you are not liable if you did not know it was there, and in vicarious you are not liable if not profiting).

And so, once more, WD was right to point out we are not making money, because that does indeed remove any possible liability in the circumstances described.

Stop spreading this nonsense, Adam. Even if that was true, Adam Poe was still not scaremongering.

Hold that opinion if you must. But I very, very strongly disagree. His posts were entirely irresponsible.

Frankly I am amazed that you cannot see the potential of the spreading of inaccurate information for causing genuine upset and alarm. With this kind of thing you must always carefully check your facts first.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hold that opinion if you must. But I very, very strongly disagree. His posts were entirely irresponsible.

Frankly I am amazed that you cannot see the potential of the spreading of inaccurate information for causing genuine upset and alarm. With this kind of thing you must always carefully check your facts first.

My information on the other hand is not inaccurate.

Nope, you are totally wrong too, in implying... in fact, outright SAYING that the legal situation is different for mods than it is for others. Nonsense.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hold that opinion if you must. But I very, very strongly disagree. His posts were entirely irresponsible.

Frankly I am amazed that you cannot see the potential of the spreading of inaccurate information for causing genuine upset and alarm. With this kind of thing you must always carefully check your facts first.
We apparently took his post extremely different. I saw it as an "Well, they could get in trouble, just saying, hypothetically" (whether that is true or not is not really important) and you as an "Guys, this is serious shit, we could all get in trouble, and likely will, and it will ruin everyone's lives". I suppose it was possible to interpet it either way, but Adam already clarified what he meant.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nope, you are totally wrong too, in implying... in fact, outright SAYING that the legal situation is different for mods than it is for others. Nonsense.

I didn't say it was different it's exactly the same except they are also forum representatives and agents of KMC hence the title Mod.

Originally posted by BAILY
on SHH posting the pics in their forums is a 4 month ban .. i dunno if the WB is really going after sites or not .. but they are being anal about the pics

Pictures Bailey is talking about are still up.

Backtracked on what he meant, is all I see.

And either he was deliberately or foolishly inciting panic with his original post. Either way, it needs to be slapped down very hard indeed.

Originally posted by Dur Greatest
I didn't say it was different it's exactly the same except they are also forum representatives and agents of KMC hence the title Mod.

Nothing to do with it. 'Forum representative' is legally meaningless.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Backtracked on what he meant, is all I see.

And either he was deliberately or foolishly inciting panic with his original post. Either way, it needs to be slapped down very hard indeed. Fair enough. I disagree.

I especially disagree that a one liner. One worder actually, ridiculing his post, is the way to do it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Backtracked on what he meant, is all I see.

And either he was deliberately or foolishly inciting panic with his original post. Either way, it needs to be slapped down very hard indeed.

So what about these sort of anomalies?

Originally posted by BAILY
on SHH posting the pics in their forums is a 4 month ban .. i dunno if the WB is really going after sites or not .. but they are being anal about the pics

Because if the site owner IS aware of infringment AND does not remove it then that is indeed a civil matter, as I have outlined above. But that's still nothing to do with the mods. It is the site owner's responsiblity.

Mods are just private posters that the site owner givesdcertain extra abilities on the forum to. That has no distinction in any relevant law here. The only way that it would have any relevance that mods can prevent things from happening would be if the mods had the power to prevent an infringement that they were profiting from and did not. Which is obviously not true.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nothing to do with it. 'Forum representative' is legally meaningless.

I would dispute that. If you have been given a responsibility to act on behalf of someone as an agent. You have a responsibility inherant to that title.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Because if the site owner IS aware of infringment AND does not remove it then that is indeed a civil matter, as I have outlined above. But that's still nothing to do with the mods. It is the site owner's responsiblity.

Um no, delegation is kind of key.

Originally posted by Dur Greatest
Exactly. Reports of copyright breaches should be acted upon. Originally posted by smashyou
This is all quite useless if your not doing anything about it.

Then get to it or all this is pointless so you may as well give up. Adam has annoyed the mods more lol.