Pirated software vs pirated websites?

[Hakonarson]

There's a member in hte Monastary advertising hisweb site that contains a considerable amount of material he has copied without permission from the people who actually wrote it.

The member is unrepentant, claiming that much of the material is "free use on the net or from the Library of Congress" - this may be true for some of it, but the pieces I pointed out were neither. He also says that he doesn't claim to have written them - which is true because he doesn't give any credit for writing them at all - IMO most ppl coming to his site would assume he has written them becausse he hasn't said anyone else has. And that is the action that creates the theft of the original writers' property.

I've pointed this out in the thread advertising the website. I was not rude or obscene, nor did I insult the member. I "merely" presented information as to the source of his material.

Those posts have been censored - removed - with the moderator's remark that the member can continue to advertise his website "which was the purpose of the thread".

Now in the rules of the forum the first 2 specifically deal with copyright issues, although relating to the copying of the programmes rather than third party info. There's also a rule not to publish copyrighted material unless you own the copyright.

In this case the member has not broken the letter of those rules as written, however I believe he has willfully stretched them, and has certainly broken the spirit by advertising updates of his website that are made up only of material he has copied without permission.

I believe the rules of the forum should prohibit the advertisement of ANYTHING illegally obtained - whether it be programmes or other intellectual property.

The fact that an amateur website is made for fun and interest and not profit does not entitle you to copy the information as you will without acknowledging the author.

In the words of one person who has had his information copied by the member:

"I know that the wargamers really like the site and have been warned that they will steal my material. Not being a gamer, I have limited contact with those sites and this is the first time I have actually seen pages that stole from me."

Nice one - one person has managed to confirm his low opinion of wargamers. I'm sure he'll think twice before continuing his great contribution to our hobby and military history in general

[solypsist]

as an internet user and member of the Org (and not as a moderator of this board) my opinion is as follows:

The Org cannot act as a policeman for the internet. Any differences between two members within a situation or issue that is not about the Org should be resolved wihout the use of the Org as an intermediary. Once a situation is resolved then the Org can take the appropriate actions such as removing the questionable links, sentences, images, etc.
It's none of the Org's business how a person collects the content for his own site, what a person puts on their site, or to supervise any business or personal transaction resulting from such activity.
Yeah, it sucks, but otherwise the Org would be inundated with a barrage of personal wish-lists, vendettas, he-said/she-said, and we would have to respond to each one, which is pointless when there are other methods to ending a disagreement (ie. you specifically copyright, so go the legal route.)

[Papewaio]

I agree with Hakonarson and Solypsist.

I also would like to point out the huge rift that occured when some members felt we where advertising/siding with a particular contributor.

The Org should not be used as the intermediary.

However by advertising a site that is proven to breach copyright, even after it has been pointed out to the owner, would be at the minimum implicit support for the act of copyright breach.

If we actively advertise it,censor others who point out the copyright breaches, ward the copyright breakers, or use moderator powers to protect the breacher and/or harass members who point out such a breach of our own rules then we are explicitly supporting the action of copyright breach.

The Org members should not only obey the letter but the spirit of the rules of this guild.

[Hakonarson]

It was more the removal of the posts that gave the addresses of the originals that irked me - I appreciate that it must be fairly difficult to know about everything that gets posted here, but removing the "correct" addresses seems a bit over the top.

[The Scourge]

You seem to really have it in for for this man.
I have no idea why ,but it's yourself that's comming out of it looking like the class snich.
Put it this way.If somebody used stuff that I'd made on their website ,then I'd take it as a compliment that they considered it good enough.
What's the big deal?It's not like he robbed a bank.

[Ithaskar Fëarindel]

Because it is a copyright breach Scourge.

Well the comment about Khurj continuing to advertise his post came out wrong. I presumed that he would remove the copied materials and then he could carry on advertising.

I presumed, since that is what I'd do if someone threatened to shut my site down ( not that I have one )

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Oct. 24 2003,02:59)]However by advertising a site that is proven to breach copyright, even after it has been pointed out to the owner, would be at the minimum implicit support for the act of copyright breach.

I have little idea about the legalities involved in this matter, but am I wrong to assume that we don´t have any proof of a copyright breach and it is not the Org´s responsibility to investigate about a possible copyright violation on another site. So, unless the owner of this material contacts the Org directly, there´s no obligation to act whatsoever.

[Papewaio]

Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Oct. 27 2003,09:43)]

Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Oct. 24 2003,02:59)]However by advertising a site that is proven to breach copyright, even after it has been pointed out to the owner, would be at the minimum implicit support for the act of copyright breach.

I have little idea about the legalities involved in this matter, but am I wrong to assume that we don´t have any proof of a copyright breach and it is not the Org´s responsibility to investigate about a possible copyright violation on another site. So, unless the owner of this material contacts the Org directly, there´s no obligation to act whatsoever.

That's why I said implicit not explicit.

[The Scourge]

Quote[/b] (Ithaskar Fëarindel @ Oct. 25 2003,19:43)]Because it is a copyright breach Scourge.

No offence ,but where I come from It's called making a big deal about nothing.

[Hakonarson]

Where you come from they call it a breach of copyright too.

And whether or not it is a big deal is up to the copyright holder - a couple of whom were incensed by it, one of whom didn't get quite so upset, and one who hasn't said anything.

[dessa14]

well copyright law on the internet is very complicated now due to inclusion of most countries i think it would be safe to delete his account and all his posts and block his ip address (just my opinion) this would solve all the possible problems involved in it.
thanks dessa

(BTW i think copyright law applys for the country it is viewed in now it used to be where it was maded)

[solypsist]

so how did this eventually play out?

[Dhepee]

Quote[/b] (dessa14 @ Nov. 03 2003,01:36)]well copyright law on the internet is very complicated now due to inclusion of most countries i think it would be safe to delete his account and all his posts and block his ip address (just my opinion) this would solve all the possible problems involved in it.
thanks dessa

(BTW i think copyright law applys for the country it is viewed in now it used to be where it was maded)

The recent trend in prosecutions in the US, where I am assuming the .org servers are located, is that the location of the server or registration location of the internet account (this is for laptop) that is committing the copyright breach is the jurisdiction underwhich the violation occurs.
i.e. if I live in Russia and create a website that violates copyright laws however I place it on a server in Palo Alto, then I am liable under Russian law and the server in Palo Alto is liable under California state law and US Federal law. This is because the server is viewed as being actively involved in the breach, as they are the agent that disseminates the works of violation of copyright law.
It's all kind of hazy and could be overturned in a couple of pending appeals, however most places take a better safe than sorry approach and immediately block access and further dissemination of the material that is in violation once they are informed by the copyright holder that they are involved in a breach of copyright.
The assumption being that a server can't know the copyright status of everything that is on it, however once informed by the copyright holder that they are in violation they must remove it and that is sufficient to protect the server from claims of liability. If the server knew that it was in violation of a copyright from the start, prior to being informed by the holder, then they are potentially liable.

[Papewaio]

Incorrect:

US Web site faces defamation suit in Australia

The case was won by Gutnick vs Dow Jones & Co

As shown:

Wednesday 29th August 2001
NEW NET DEFAMATION RULING


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a surprise decision that may have global ramifications, Justice John Hedigan of the Victorian Supreme Court ruled yesterday that online defamation occurs at the point where a web page is read rather than at the point where the web server broadcasting the page is located. The decision was handed down in a dispute between Australian businessman Joseph Gutnick and US publisher Dow Jones, who published an article about Gutnick in their Barrons magazine in the US and subsequently republished it on their New Jersey-based web site. Gutnick claimed that the article was defamatory and wished to sue Dow Jones under Australian law because some Barrons subscribers were able to read the online article in his home state of Victoria. Ignoring an earlier decision made in the NSW Supreme Court in a similar case in 1999, Justice Hedigan rejected Dow Jones' arguments and ruled that the same laws that have applied to print defamation "for centuries" should also apply to the Net. The decision may mean that web publishers are now liable for defamation suits under any of the estimated 190 jurisdictions around the world where defamation law exists or that - at the least - US companies may be liable for defamation suits in Australian courts, even though articles they publish on US web servers that fall within the limits of US law. Dow Jones have announced their intention to appeal the decision.

[Dhepee]

That's very interesting because first of all it is a the opposite of US law and a lot of US servers probably have material that could be considered defamatory in other countries. That could pose quite the problem since it effectively means that the country with the strictest defamation and libel laws sets the standard for worldwide publication. i.e. American servers that broadcast the Prince Charlie accusations could be sued under British law, regardless of the constitutional protections that they enjoy in the US (In the US to prove libel you have to prove actual damage and you can't libel a person in the public eye, otherwise you fall afoul of the 1st amendment, in the UK you only have to prove potential damages and the courts have never upheld that all people in the public eye are unable to be libelled).
Just to clarify how it is in the US in general terms.

Libel is publishing something that is untrue and causes actual damage you do not necessarily have to know that it is untrue at the time of publication for it to be libelous, this is why newspapers have fact checkers, a publication must take reasonable steps to ensure that what it says about others is true. People in the public eye are not able to sue for libel, the courts won't uphold it.

Defamation is intentionally publishing material that you know to be untrue that impeaches a person's character or actions in some way, so as to cause them embarassment, influence a decision making process, or to reap some sort of gain. People in the public eye can sue for defamation but it is much harder to prove as you must prove intent but you don't have to prove damage.

[dessa14]

no libel is a part of defamation same with slander. libel is a recorded medium (Television, Paper etc) that can be proved not to be in the publics general interest and defamatory it doesn't matter if it is true. slander is spoken word that damages someones reputation (slander is much harder to sue under) it doesn't need to cause real damage but only tarnish the persons reputation.
thanks dessa