Originally posted by BackFire
Why must you ruin funny?
It was a legit question. I found my answer...you big meanie!
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?
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:
KMC Forums shall not be held responsible for member-posted information that may violate copyright law.
KillerMovies or its assigned agents also reserves the right to prohibit or delete discussions that are thought to violate applicable law or that may be harmful to other members, the sites that comprise KillerMovies, or the rights of KillerMovies or others. That said, we cannot ensure prompt removal of offending discussion forum posts. We also reserve the right to remove your membership from you should you violate these Guidelines.Considering the real-time nature of this bulletin board, it is impossible for KillerMovies to review all messages or confirm the validity of information posted. Please remember that KillerMovies does not actively monitor the contents of all posted messages and is not responsible for any messages posted. KillerMovies does not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and is not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of KillerMovies or any entity associated with KillerMovies. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. KillerMovies has the ability to remove objectionable messages and will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if it is determined that removal is necessary.
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.
Re: I will be awaiting an apology from DigiMark007 and Ushgarak.
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.
Re: Re: I will be awaiting an apology from DigiMark007 and Ushgarak.
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 the[b]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.
Stop spreading this nonsense. [/B]
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 UshgarakEven if that was true, Adam Poe was still not scaremongering.
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 [b]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. [/B]
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.