Originally posted by BackFireTrue enough, I shall extend the rape analogy.
You're reading too much into it.I just wanted to bring rape into the thread.
You're secretly thanking me. I know it.
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
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.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarfEvilTwinBackfire! I ought sue you for been too damn sexy!
rawr!
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 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 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 UshgarakFair 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".
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.
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...