Originally posted by Dur Greatest
I don't know. The owner would though. I do know other forums, larger than this were worried about these pictures.
Larger?
Examples?
You are aware that this place is # 90 in the world as far as forum "largeness goes".
Don't talk out of your ass. If you do, make sure you let me know that you are doing it and I can help you talk out of your ass by holding your cheeks apart.
edit-the answer is obviously NOOOOOOOOOOOO!...or else they would have been removed. We DO have good mods, you know. 😉
Originally posted by dadudemon
Larger?Examples?
You are aware that this place is # 90 in the world as far as forum "largeness goes".
Don't talk out of your ass. If you do, make sure you let me know that you are doing it and I can help you talk out of your ass by holding your cheeks apart.
edit-the answer is obviously NOOOOOOOOOOOO!...or else they would have been removed. We DO have good mods, you know. 😉
Now your going to look at bigboards not realising posts do not indicate a boards size. Neither do members. This forum has usually about 300 people on at it's busiest time of day. Of them only about 60 - 70 are members. Somewhere like the hype has about 700 at is peak time. With about twice that number of members present.
Originally posted by Dur Greatest
Now your going to look at bigboards not realising posts do not indicate a boards size. Neither do members.
That was a reduntant statement. I win. 😐
Originally posted by Dur Greatest
This forum has usually about 300 people on at it's busiest time of day. Of them only about 60 - 70 are members. Somewhere like the hype has about 700 at is peak time. With about twice that number of members present.
You obviously don't have access to the admin page that Raz and possibly the global mods do. How could you possibly know that? Ass talking again? 🙂
😆
The arrogance in your ignorance is breathtaking.
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 [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. You are the only one who should be apologising for such reckless commentary. [/B]
I manage copyrighted works for the largest recruitment-advertising agency in the world, and as such, a thorough knowledge of copyright law is a function of my employment.
Your understanding of copyright infringement is wrong. One need not financially benefit from infringing a work to be responsible for statutory damages.
Your understanding of vicarious liability is wrong. When determining vicarious liability, a judge will examine whether one financially benefits from infringing a work, or whether he supervised the infringing of a work. One need only be responsible for one of these activities to be vicariously liable.
Originally posted by Peach
And as for the "mods could be held responsible" thing...has anyone noticed the big disclaimer in the rules that basically covers just that?
[list=1][*]The disclaimer in question does not represent a legally binding agreement between the disclaimant and any copyright holder.
[*]The presence of a disclaimer does not guarantee that its terms will be recognized or enforced in a legal dispute.[/list]
Re: Moderator Responsibility
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.
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.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
If you think that is legally relevant, then it only is in your mind. Legally speaking there is no difference here between a mod and a private poster.The only responsibility here is an entirely internal one- e.g. the site owner tells a mod that if he doesn't stop being lazy and start removing such material he will be fired as a mod. That's all.
No one stated that there is a legal difference between a member and a moderator, per se. Only that a member and moderator are liable for copyright infringement in different ways. It is the ability of a moderator to oversee and manipulate the activity in specific forums that potentially makes him vicariously liable for the infringing activity that occurs in them:
What Are Moderators?Moderators oversee specific forums. They generally have the ability to edit and delete posts, move threads, and perform other manipulations.
Originally posted by Dur Greatest
It's possible that as you have no contract, you actually have no liability at all. In which case your actions are not actually those of the web site.
To the contrary, a contract is necessary for there to be indemnification. Moreover, the entity is responsible for the actions or inactions of those in its agency, Varon v. Santa Fe Reporter.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To the contrary, a contract is necessary for there to be indemnification. Moreover, the entity is responsible for the actions or inactions of those in its agency, Varon v. Santa Fe Reporter.
pwnt.
That's what I was looking for. Legit cases that could be applicable in one way or another to this thread.