4 ms·

As someone who runs a number of message boards, I can say that I would be thrilled to receive such high quality takedown notices. I deal with these often enoug

by bmelton 13y ago

As someone who runs a number of message boards, I can say that I would be thrilled to receive such high quality takedown notices. I deal with these often enough that I can attest to the general badness of takedown notices -- usually, they include the victim's name, the accusation that I'm infringing, and the demand for a takedown. Most noticeably, what is almost always missing are descriptions of the images, links to where they're located on the site (I can't find an image by name if one of my members posted it -- I just can't), etc. As these include all of the above, I have to say kudos. Somewhat offtopic, perhaps I should post my "Here's why I'm not complying with your DMCA takedown notice" standard letters as a response. (Not because I'm a dick, but because I don't personally violate image copyrights, and if my members do, it's hosted externally by design -- what I do instead is redirect the complainant to where the image is hosted and offer any assistance I can, short of editing user posts on my properties.)

rurounijones 13y ago
To be honest, I would like to see those templates. There is nothing "dick'ish" about posting them (or the links to them) here. DCMA is highly abused but that doesn't mean we cannot make things more civil when there appears to be a breach. These kinds of templates help with that.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Looking through my sent box, this one seems to be the one I've used most, and I've crudely converted it into a Google Drive public doc. Feel free to use / adapt / modify however you want. I relinquish copyright on it altogether. It's world-readable, and commenting is enabled, so feel free to make suggestions. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dO9MWUH6pYTXb34Vr-0A2fdv7nbGdCl41xd9RBmnnRw/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dO9MWUH6pYTXb34Vr-0A2fdv...
  - dvanduzer 13y ago
    I commend you on your diplomacy. And particularly for sharing that in a venue where the word copyright is usually followed by the word cartel.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Copyright's a complicated issue, to be sure, but I make things, and I believe that the things I make are mine. If I open source those things, as I often do, that's a different conversation -- cause when I don't open source them, then I'm not giving them away. If somebody owns something, it's not mine to take from them, even if I want it really badly. On the flip side of the conversation, if someone posts something on one of my websites, it isn't my place to tell them "No, you can't do that". The only exceptions to that are for obviously spam messages and attempts at breaking the site (whether phishing, hacking or whatever). The easy answer for me, that I made long ago, was to just not allow self-image hosting, which at least defers some of the harder decisions to somebody else, and thus far has saved me from having to deal with lawyers or cops, except for one situation, which was... awkward. Thankfully, I haven't run into any issues of plagiarism to my knowledge, because those would be obviously infringing, and I wouldn't be able to pass the buck to anyone but me. Edit: Oh, and thanks. That was all I meant to type originally, but for some reason, I'm exceptionally wordy tonight.
      - termain 13y ago
        "If somebody owns something, it's not mine to take from them, even if I want it really badly." That's the crux of much of the copyright debate, right there. Copying doesn't take someone's work from them, he or she still has access to it. Right or wrong, good or bad, it's not theft. Unfortunately, much of the public debate surrounding copyright circles around appeals to emotion about how much like theft copyright violation is. Personally, I'd say not at all. It might be similar conversion -- the use of someone's property without their permission -- but I'm not sure about that. There's also the "thingness" of a work. In the usual sense, even if your first copy of a work is a thing, it's not the same thing as a copy of it. And copyright necessarily acknowledges that, as the property like component is not the work, but the copyright itself. So the thing that is (sort of) yours -- if it exists enough to call it a thing -- is not the thing you created, it's the legal instrument that controls replication of the thing you created. You're right, copyright is complicated. But it's not so complicated that confusing it with possession or ownership of physical property is a useful approximation.
johnny99 13y ago
If someone is hosting an actually infringing image elsewhere, but using your site to display it, it seems to me that you're at least complicit, and at worst a sort of fence. If someone sends a polite, specific, with-links-and-supporting-documentation email, don't you think it might be fair to remove the link, if not the post?
- SavvyGuard 13y ago
  You should reread the comment you're replying to. > Most noticeably, what is almost always missing are descriptions of the images, links to where they're located on the site
- alextingle 13y ago
  So you think I can infringe someone's copyright by pointing at a book??
- bmelton 13y ago
  I don't think it's particularly unfair to do it the way that I'm doing it. As 'fair' as it would be to remove the links for display, the counter argument to that is that I'm not infringing the right of free speech of a member of my sites, and I see that as a threat to one's civil liberties that I won't tread upon without being ordered to by the court.
bmelton 13y ago
Just an FYI, but after a handful of people asked me to, I went ahead and made this a Github repo, located here[1]. I'll leave the Google Doc up for posterity, but I might eventually pull it down, or just modify its contents to be a link to the repo. [1] - https://github.com/bmelton/DMCA-Takedown-Denial/ https://github.com/bmelton/DMCA-Takedown-Denial/

by bmelton 13y ago

rurounijones 13y ago

To be honest, I would like to see those templates. There is nothing "dick'ish" about posting them (or the links to them) here. DCMA is highly abused but that doesn't mean we cannot make things more civil when there appears to be a breach. These kinds of templates help with that.

bmelton 13y ago
Looking through my sent box, this one seems to be the one I've used most, and I've crudely converted it into a Google Drive public doc. Feel free to use / adapt / modify however you want. I relinquish copyright on it altogether. It's world-readable, and commenting is enabled, so feel free to make suggestions. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dO9MWUH6pYTXb34Vr-0A2fdv7nbGdCl41xd9RBmnnRw/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dO9MWUH6pYTXb34Vr-0A2fdv...
- dvanduzer 13y ago
  I commend you on your diplomacy. And particularly for sharing that in a venue where the word copyright is usually followed by the word cartel.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Copyright's a complicated issue, to be sure, but I make things, and I believe that the things I make are mine. If I open source those things, as I often do, that's a different conversation -- cause when I don't open source them, then I'm not giving them away. If somebody owns something, it's not mine to take from them, even if I want it really badly. On the flip side of the conversation, if someone posts something on one of my websites, it isn't my place to tell them "No, you can't do that". The only exceptions to that are for obviously spam messages and attempts at breaking the site (whether phishing, hacking or whatever). The easy answer for me, that I made long ago, was to just not allow self-image hosting, which at least defers some of the harder decisions to somebody else, and thus far has saved me from having to deal with lawyers or cops, except for one situation, which was... awkward. Thankfully, I haven't run into any issues of plagiarism to my knowledge, because those would be obviously infringing, and I wouldn't be able to pass the buck to anyone but me. Edit: Oh, and thanks. That was all I meant to type originally, but for some reason, I'm exceptionally wordy tonight.
    - termain 13y ago
      "If somebody owns something, it's not mine to take from them, even if I want it really badly." That's the crux of much of the copyright debate, right there. Copying doesn't take someone's work from them, he or she still has access to it. Right or wrong, good or bad, it's not theft. Unfortunately, much of the public debate surrounding copyright circles around appeals to emotion about how much like theft copyright violation is. Personally, I'd say not at all. It might be similar conversion -- the use of someone's property without their permission -- but I'm not sure about that. There's also the "thingness" of a work. In the usual sense, even if your first copy of a work is a thing, it's not the same thing as a copy of it. And copyright necessarily acknowledges that, as the property like component is not the work, but the copyright itself. So the thing that is (sort of) yours -- if it exists enough to call it a thing -- is not the thing you created, it's the legal instrument that controls replication of the thing you created. You're right, copyright is complicated. But it's not so complicated that confusing it with possession or ownership of physical property is a useful approximation.

johnny99 13y ago

If someone is hosting an actually infringing image elsewhere, but using your site to display it, it seems to me that you're at least complicit, and at worst a sort of fence. If someone sends a polite, specific, with-links-and-supporting-documentation email, don't you think it might be fair to remove the link, if not the post?

SavvyGuard 13y ago
You should reread the comment you're replying to. > Most noticeably, what is almost always missing are descriptions of the images, links to where they're located on the site
alextingle 13y ago
So you think I can infringe someone's copyright by pointing at a book??
bmelton 13y ago
I don't think it's particularly unfair to do it the way that I'm doing it. As 'fair' as it would be to remove the links for display, the counter argument to that is that I'm not infringing the right of free speech of a member of my sites, and I see that as a threat to one's civil liberties that I won't tread upon without being ordered to by the court.

bmelton 13y ago

Just an FYI, but after a handful of people asked me to, I went ahead and made this a Github repo, located here[1]. I'll leave the Google Doc up for posterity, but I might eventually pull it down, or just modify its contents to be a link to the repo. [1] - https://github.com/bmelton/DMCA-Takedown-Denial/ https://github.com/bmelton/DMCA-Takedown-Denial/