Luckily I don't violate any copyrights with my Millan smilies because I have bought a subscription and I follow the rules for using them.

Cant read that link, Fuzzy, without having an account.

---

me@rescam.org

I am going to leave this, it is not about moderation. It is about Copyright! Many here abuse that!

So if you talk about this further i will spend the night removing things...

Per definition, you as a moderator should be one of the good guys, a shining example in following the rules!

Are you ready for the censorship that would follow with immaculate moderators perfectly enforcing the rules? You and your group didn't like it the previous time it was requested. Or the time before that. Or the time before that.

Further, further, further...

---

me@rescam.org

Which goes to show as mentioned before they do not make it easy to find.

Luckily I don't violate any copyrights with my Millan smilies because I have bought a subscription and I follow the rules for using them.

Cant read that link, Fuzzy, without having an account.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

ok, I'm confused.
If I took one of the 30/30 sigs and changed it to 69/30 as a parody.
Is that a problem.
Please don't post laws and stuff, if you can just a yes, no or maybe.
This stuff is handy to know for future reference.
Thanks

---

Join Calm Chaos

Sma@rt@ss, or as sometimes my wife sez that is the smartest part of my body... ROTFLMAO

I am going to leave this, it is not about moderation. It is about Copyright! Many here abuse that!

So if you talk about this further i will spend the night removing things...

Per definition, you as a moderator should be one of the good guys, a shining example in following the rules!

Are you ready for the censorship that would follow with immaculate moderators perfectly enforcing the rules? You and your group didn't like it the previous time it was requested. Or the time before that. Or the time before that.

Further, further, further...

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

The Fact that Eric did not tell you to go do research or spend the hours to do research is not the answer!

The people that are lazy and do not do that research after Eric ask them in "not so many words" was implied. "Common Sense." So for my part, that is part of common sense. Google is one of our Friends.

So how do the Users Here, insure they are not getting Seti and a Scientist in trouble. How I Read, what you are saying is the Eric sez it does not matter... What I know from Eric is things Do Matter, however he does not always have the time to explain fully. Then you see a clarification message and then another... So the definition becomes "reactive," I would hope that users would be "proactive" to help within the guidelines Eric has provided... Then this message would not be needed.

I could spend about 45 minutes typing (1995) my company was servred with a Subpeona for a copyright voilation to transfer the the orignal graphic with time date flags in place to a floppy disk (DOS).. One of our User found that something had been stolen and had enough money to file suit. Because the other partly was in a different state the FBI became involved. The FBI agent had no idea of what he was about to learn.

What he left with was the oringal grahpic (with a new time date flag) on disk a Certified Laser print copy of the the original Time Date Flags, the MD5 checksum of the orginal graphic to compare to the "suspect" grahpic... and signed affidavits from a whole bunch of people that were taken away from there other jobs to provide witness of what happened... For our part over the two days about 8 man days were lost. When the FBI agent now armed with the knowledge and the tool to go to the other end and meet with the local agent there proved that proved in less than 30 minutes the graphic which had a later time date flag was in fact the same graphic. With review of the ISP involved is was also shown that other grahpics on the machine were also suspect and the the user had violated their AUP. The account was locked, to preserve evidence... The case was won in court... As far as in know no money ever got back to the original person, but that was 1995, 1996. The Dentist Amatuer Astronomer/Phototagrapher spent a lot of money to protect his interlectual property that was abused.

Today, laws have changed...

So You want Everyone to Ignore what is Actually Correct! Is that what you are saying? Or do you want people to become more educated is what is the correct use of graphics that many post here? It will take many users helping many users but can be done.

Pappa, I respectfully disagree.

Of course we should use common sense, so as not to invite reprisals.

BUT...

Where has Eric ruled that we have to make a full link back to the source?

I think you are adding something of your own onto his ruling. IMHO it is enough to identify the source by plain text reference, and even that is not required in every case, as a practical matter. I prefer text attributions anyway, because a C&D requires an internet link, so why supply one gratis?

And no, the DMCA does not close down the forums, individual copyright holders do. That is to say they may, if they wish to meticulously follow the Act. The issuing of a C&D is the first step required by law. In nearly every case that I've heard of, the removal of the offending material puts an end to all proceedings.

I think you are being greatly overanxious in talking about a copyright infringment action putting UCBerkeley in the news. It won't happen. These copyright protections are aimed at commercial exploitation. Nobody on the forums uses any of the copied material in that way.

These copyright matters are being handled in a practical, commonsense way as things are. In the one or two cases where I have perceived any danger, I've informed both the poster and Eric of the potential danger.

It's not helpful to raise needless theoretical fears, or speak of Pandoras Box, imho.

Pappa:

I'm sorry about your previous legal difficulties. It explains why you are so anxious.


My position is that the present status quo with respect to our postings should be continued.


I've pointed out that your demands about attribution and how it should be done is your engrafting something on your own onto Eric's ruling. You say that, "The Fact that Eric did not tell you to go do research or spend the hours to do research is not the answer!" I say that it is. Eric ruled as he did: no more and no less.

You should not spin my position. Maintaining the status quo here does not mean "what you are saying is that Eric sez it [common sense] does not matter...".

Your argument that the various changes that you want to make to the status quo are implied, is a confirmation to me that these things are NOT a part of Eric's ruling. I asked you where Eric said those additional things and you've supplied your inferences and reasoning as a substitute for his plain words.

I did not say that one should not use common sense. I merely said that what we do now, works as practical matter. I do not believe that we have to become DMCA legal experts (I know you didn't say that), or that we should go out of our way to push the boundaries and invite legal action. I merely said that we need not be proactive in the sense of acting as agents for copyright holders when we post. And that accords completely with what Eric ruled: no more and no less.

You're the one that wants to make changes. I want things to stay as they are.

I can't make my position (which is a reasonable and practical one imho) any plainer than that.

---

Red
If you asked Ice for permission there would be no problem if he allowed it. At this point if you just did it... and his site has no fair user, reproduction page... You are a risk...

One thing that has been brought up was the Original graphic may be a modification of one the original graphics from the site. That is an issue... Anything You create on your own that is "close" is fair game... I recommend PhotoImpact for the graphics software... type in Ulead.com in the browser window...

ok, I'm confused.
If I took one of the 30/30 sigs and changed it to 69/30 as a parody.
Is that a problem.
Please don't post laws and stuff, if you can just a yes, no or maybe.
This stuff is handy to know for future reference.
Thanks

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

The Fact that Eric did not tell you to go do research or spend the hours to do research is not the answer!

The people that are lazy and do not do that research after Eric ask them in "not so many words" was implied. "Common Sense." So for my part, that is part of common sense. Google is one of our Friends.

So how do the Users Here, insure they are not getting Seti and a Scientist in trouble. How I Read, what you are saying is the Eric sez it does not matter... What I know from Eric is things Do Matter, however he does not always have the time to explain fully. Then you see a clarification message and then another... So the definition becomes "reactive," I would hope that users would be "proactive" to help within the guidelines Eric has provided... Then this message would not be needed.

I could spend about 45 minutes typing (1995) my company was servred with a Subpeona for a copyright voilation to transfer the the orignal graphic with time date flags in place to a floppy disk (DOS).. One of our User found that something had been stolen and had enough money to file suit. Because the other partly was in a different state the FBI became involved. The FBI agent had no idea of what he was about to learn.

What he left with was the oringal grahpic (with a new time date flag) on disk a Certified Laser print copy of the the original Time Date Flags, the MD5 checksum of the orginal graphic to compare to the "suspect" grahpic... and signed affidavits from a whole bunch of people that were taken away from there other jobs to provide witness of what happened... For our part over the two days about 8 man days were lost. When the FBI agent now armed with the knowledge and the tool to go to the other end and meet with the local agent there proved that proved in less than 30 minutes the graphic which had a later time date flag was in fact the same graphic. With review of the ISP involved is was also shown that other grahpics on the machine were also suspect and the the user had violated their AUP. The account was locked, to preserve evidence... The case was won in court... As far as in know no money ever got back to the original person, but that was 1995, 1996. The Dentist Amatuer Astronomer/Phototagrapher spent a lot of money to protect his interlectual property that was abused.

Today, laws have changed...

So You want Everyone to Ignore what is Actually Correct! Is that what you are saying? Or do you want people to become more educated is what is the correct use of graphics that many post here? It will take many users helping many users but can be done.

Pappa, I respectfully disagree.

Of course we should use common sense, so as not to invite reprisals.

BUT...

Where has Eric ruled that we have to make a full link back to the source?

I think you are adding something of your own onto his ruling. IMHO it is enough to identify the source by plain text reference, and even that is not required in every case, as a practical matter. I prefer text attributions anyway, because a C&D requires an internet link, so why supply one gratis?

And no, the DMCA does not close down the forums, individual copyright holders do. That is to say they may, if they wish to meticulously follow the Act. The issuing of a C&D is the first step required by law. In nearly every case that I've heard of, the removal of the offending material puts an end to all proceedings.

I think you are being greatly overanxious in talking about a copyright infringment action putting UCBerkeley in the news. It won't happen. These copyright protections are aimed at commercial exploitation. Nobody on the forums uses any of the copied material in that way.

These copyright matters are being handled in a practical, commonsense way as things are. In the one or two cases where I have perceived any danger, I've informed both the poster and Eric of the potential danger.

It's not helpful to raise needless theoretical fears, or speak of Pandoras Box, imho.

Pappa:

I'm sorry about your previous legal difficulties. It explains why you are so anxious.


My position is that the present status quo with respect to our postings should be continued.


I've pointed out that your demands about attribution and how it should be done is your engrafting something on your own onto Eric's ruling. You say that, "The Fact that Eric did not tell you to go do research or spend the hours to do research is not the answer!" I say that it is. Eric ruled as he did: no more and no less.

You should not spin my position. Maintaining the status quo here does not mean "what you are saying is that Eric sez it [common sense] does not matter...".

Your argument that the various changes that you want to make to the status quo are implied, is a confirmation to me that these things are NOT a part of Eric's ruling. I asked you where Eric said those additional things and you've supplied your inferences and reasoning as a substitute for his plain words.

I did not say that one should not use common sense. I merely said that what we do now, works as practical matter. I do not believe that we have to become DMCA legal experts (I know you didn't say that), or that we should go out of our way to push the boundaries and invite legal action. I merely said that we need not be proactive in the sense of acting as agents for copyright holders when we post. And that accords completely with what Eric ruled: no more and no less.

You're the one that wants to make changes. I want things to stay as they are.

I can't make my position (which is a reasonable and practical one imho) any plainer than that.

Clear, concise, and to the point Beets.

---

Account frozen...

ok, I'm confused.
If I took one of the 30/30 sigs and changed it to 69/30 as a parody.
Is that a problem.
Please don't post laws and stuff, if you can just a yes, no or maybe.
This stuff is handy to know for future reference.
Thanks

No. Misfit is right. Parody is exempt.

---

Thanks Pappa

Red
If you asked Ice for permission there would be no problem if he allowed it. At this point if you just did it... and his site has no fair user, reproduction page... You are a risk...

One thing that has been brought up was the Original graphic may be a modification of one the original graphics from the site. That is an issue... Anything You create on your own that is "close" is fair game... I recommend PhotoImpact for the graphics software... type in Ulead.com in the browser window...

ok, I'm confused.
If I took one of the 30/30 sigs and changed it to 69/30 as a parody.
Is that a problem.
Please don't post laws and stuff, if you can just a yes, no or maybe.
This stuff is handy to know for future reference.
Thanks

---

Join Calm Chaos

So right now Beethoven Sez, from what you understand that Eric Sez it is alright... That is what you just said!

We can just Gloss over the Surface and it is Okay! Or Put I Put my hand over my face and I can see nothing! No Harm no foul!

All of those words are WRONG!

You obviously never sufered a Net legal battle... I have!

How I read your statement, which means you are willing to put Seti at Risk!

Why?

The Fact that Eric did not tell you to go do research or spend the hours to do research is not the answer!

The people that are lazy and do not do that research after Eric ask them in "not so many words" was implied. "Common Sense." So for my part, that is part of common sense. Google is one of our Friends.

So how do the Users Here, insure they are not getting Seti and a Scientist in trouble. How I Read, what you are saying is the Eric sez it does not matter... What I know from Eric is things Do Matter, however he does not always have the time to explain fully. Then you see a clarification message and then another... So the definition becomes "reactive," I would hope that users would be "proactive" to help within the guidelines Eric has provided... Then this message would not be needed.

I could spend about 45 minutes typing (1995) my company was servred with a Subpeona for a copyright voilation to transfer the the orignal graphic with time date flags in place to a floppy disk (DOS).. One of our User found that something had been stolen and had enough money to file suit. Because the other partly was in a different state the FBI became involved. The FBI agent had no idea of what he was about to learn.

What he left with was the oringal grahpic (with a new time date flag) on disk a Certified Laser print copy of the the original Time Date Flags, the MD5 checksum of the orginal graphic to compare to the "suspect" grahpic... and signed affidavits from a whole bunch of people that were taken away from there other jobs to provide witness of what happened... For our part over the two days about 8 man days were lost. When the FBI agent now armed with the knowledge and the tool to go to the other end and meet with the local agent there proved that proved in less than 30 minutes the graphic which had a later time date flag was in fact the same graphic. With review of the ISP involved is was also shown that other grahpics on the machine were also suspect and the the user had violated their AUP. The account was locked, to preserve evidence... The case was won in court... As far as in know no money ever got back to the original person, but that was 1995, 1996. The Dentist Amatuer Astronomer/Phototagrapher spent a lot of money to protect his interlectual property that was abused.

Today, laws have changed...

So You want Everyone to Ignore what is Actually Correct! Is that what you are saying? Or do you want people to become more educated is what is the correct use of graphics that many post here? It will take many users helping many users but can be done.

Pappa, I respectfully disagree.

Of course we should use common sense, so as not to invite reprisals.

BUT...

Where has Eric ruled that we have to make a full link back to the source?

I think you are adding something of your own onto his ruling. IMHO it is enough to identify the source by plain text reference, and even that is not required in every case, as a practical matter. I prefer text attributions anyway, because a C&D requires an internet link, so why supply one gratis?

And no, the DMCA does not close down the forums, individual copyright holders do. That is to say they may, if they wish to meticulously follow the Act. The issuing of a C&D is the first step required by law. In nearly every case that I've heard of, the removal of the offending material puts an end to all proceedings.

I think you are being greatly overanxious in talking about a copyright infringment action putting UCBerkeley in the news. It won't happen. These copyright protections are aimed at commercial exploitation. Nobody on the forums uses any of the copied material in that way.

These copyright matters are being handled in a practical, commonsense way as things are. In the one or two cases where I have perceived any danger, I've informed both the poster and Eric of the potential danger.

It's not helpful to raise needless theoretical fears, or speak of Pandoras Box, imho.

Pappa:

I'm sorry about your previous legal difficulties. It explains why you are so anxious.


My position is that the present status quo with respect to our postings should be continued.


I've pointed out that your demands about attribution and how it should be done is your engrafting something on your own onto Eric's ruling. You say that, "The Fact that Eric did not tell you to go do research or spend the hours to do research is not the answer!" I say that it is. Eric ruled as he did: no more and no less.

You should not spin my position. Maintaining the status quo here does not mean "what you are saying is that Eric sez it [common sense] does not matter...".

Your argument that the various changes that you want to make to the status quo are implied, is a confirmation to me that these things are NOT a part of Eric's ruling. I asked you where Eric said those additional things and you've supplied your inferences and reasoning as a substitute for his plain words.

I did not say that one should not use common sense. I merely said that what we do now, works as practical matter. I do not believe that we have to become DMCA legal experts (I know you didn't say that), or that we should go out of our way to push the boundaries and invite legal action. I merely said that we need not be proactive in the sense of acting as agents for copyright holders when we post. And that accords completely with what Eric ruled: no more and no less.

You're the one that wants to make changes. I want things to stay as they are.

I can't make my position (which is a reasonable and practical one imho) any plainer than that.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Which goes to show as mentioned before they do not make it easy to find.

Luckily I don't violate any copyrights with my Millan smilies because I have bought a subscription and I follow the rules for using them.

Cant read that link, Fuzzy, without having an account.

I have not visited the site so I do not know what their Terms of Use are. But I have seen other users copy the Millan images she posts in an attempt to use them against her in some way. Wouldn't that be a violation of copyright?

---

me@rescam.org

I've pointed out that your demands about attribution and how it should be done is your engrafting something on your own onto Eric's ruling. You say that, "The Fact that Eric did not tell you to go do research or spend the hours to do research is not the answer!" I say that it is. Eric ruled as he did: no more and no less.

With all do respect to Eric, Copyright law is copyright law. If the law says you can't do it then you can't do it, no matter what Admin tells you. Admin is not above the law; and neither are the Regents at UCB.

---

me@rescam.org

No. Misfit is right. Parody is exempt.

Confirmed - parody is exempt.

---

me@rescam.org

So right now Beethoven Sez, from what you understand that Eric Sez it is alright... That is what you just said!

We can just Gloss over the Surface and it is Okay! Or Put I Put my hand over my face and I can see nothing! No Harm no foul!

All of those words are WRONG!

You obviously never sufered a Net legal battle... I have!

How I read your statement, which means you are willing to put Seti at Risk!

Why?

Well Pappa, that's how you read it, but most I think do not read it that way.


But to answer your question:


To begin with, because we simply could not put Seti beyond risk, no matter how hard we tried. We simply don't have the expertise. We are not qualified. Businessmen realize that. We are at risk whether we like it or not.


Secondly, because there is no commercial use of anyone's copyrighted material. We do not profit from our breaches, and nobody loses money because of them.


Thirdly, because we are too far down the list in terms of priority for anyone to seriously invest in any lawsuit against us. Copyright is not only breached here Pappa, it is breached just about everwhere. We are ridiculously low on the food chain, compared with the huge list of commercially damaging copyright abusers. We are the smallest of fish, Pappa, the least of villains.


Fourthly, because we need not be purer than the monks in the monastery, that's not our obligation as ordinary individual posters.


And last but not least, because we abide with Eric's ruling: no less, but no more is required.

---

Thirdly, because we are too far down the list in terms of priority for anyone to seriously invest in any lawsuit against us. Copyright is not only breached here Pappa, it is breached just about everwhere. We are ridiculously low on the list compared with the huge list of commercially damaging copyright abusers. We are the smallest of fish, Pappa, the least of villains.

Regardless of copyright being breached elsewhere bears no weight on SETI@home or UCB. Cops will still arrest a guy holding a joint even if there is a known drug lord down the street. If it is illegal then it is illegal. Being a criminal defense atty you know this all too well.

And last but not least, because we abide with Eric's ruling: no less, but no more is required.

Except if the ruling is unlawful. If so that ruling is moot.

---

me@rescam.org

Thirdly, because we are too far down the list in terms of priority for anyone to seriously invest in any lawsuit against us. Copyright is not only breached here Pappa, it is breached just about everwhere. We are ridiculously low on the list compared with the huge list of commercially damaging copyright abusers. We are the smallest of fish, Pappa, the least of villains.

Regardless of copyright being breached elsewhere bears no weight on SETI@home or UCB. Cops will still arrest a guy holding a joint even if there is a known drug lord down the street. If it is illegal then it is illegal. Being a criminal defense atty you know this all too well.

And last but not least, because we abide with Eric's ruling: no less, but no more is required.

Except if the ruling is unlawful. If so that ruling is moot.

Does that mean Misfit, that you're now going to start emailing permission requests and vetting every pic you post before you post it?

---

Okay

What I hear you saying "we" can do "it" does not matter no matter how WRONG it is! Or even if Eric wanted us to do it correctly... It does not matter...

IF everyone had the help of other users, to insure that what they displayed for Graphics was Okay... Then this Forum Thread would not be here... Or others, unknowing would not be in the middle. Most courts no matter, which part of the world there are in do not accept "ignorance" as a "defense."

I am sorry, I used to have more respect for you... You are not purporting "Responsible Use" of the Internet... You are promoting something else...

While I have had work issues that prevented me from solving the Chess Problem that caught my interest. I would expect that you will have the proper copyright disclaimers in the Chess Forum Thread shortly. It is a Great thread and You can quickly be corrected those issues.

I Count on You doing the Right Thing!

So right now Beethoven Sez, from what you understand that Eric Sez it is alright... That is what you just said!

We can just Gloss over the Surface and it is Okay! Or Put I Put my hand over my face and I can see nothing! No Harm no foul!

All of those words are WRONG!

You obviously never sufered a Net legal battle... I have!

How I read your statement, which means you are willing to put Seti at Risk!

Why?

Well Pappa, that's how you read it, but most I think do not read it that way.


But to answer your question:


To begin with, because we simply could not put Seti beyond risk, no matter how hard we tried. We simply don't have the expertise. We are not qulified. Businessmen realize that.


Secondly, because there is no commercial use of anyone's copyrighted material. We do not profit from our breaches, and nobody loses money from it.


Thirdly, because we are too far down the list in terms of priority for anyone to seriously invest in any lawsuit against us. Copyright is not only breached here Pappa, it is breached just about everwhere. We are ridiculously low on the list compared with the huge list of commercially damaging copyright abusers. We are the smallest of fish, Pappa.

Fourthly, because we need not be purer than the monks in the monastery, that's not our obligation as ordinary individual posters.

And last but not least, because we abide with Eric's ruling: no less, but no more is required.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Get Real

I means that people have to be more "careful" and spend a bit of time...

It appears that you are referring to BOTD which are graphics that are covered under UCB Seti's Copyright... Which becomes a whole different issue...

Right now, with what you have said this post is a "Flame." You have previously stated that it does not matter! At least get your story straight! Or which side you are one... The Correct Side of the Inccorect Side.

Thirdly, because we are too far down the list in terms of priority for anyone to seriously invest in any lawsuit against us. Copyright is not only breached here Pappa, it is breached just about everwhere. We are ridiculously low on the list compared with the huge list of commercially damaging copyright abusers. We are the smallest of fish, Pappa, the least of villains.

Regardless of copyright being breached elsewhere bears no weight on SETI@home or UCB. Cops will still arrest a guy holding a joint even if there is a known drug lord down the street. If it is illegal then it is illegal. Being a criminal defense atty you know this all too well.

And last but not least, because we abide with Eric's ruling: no less, but no more is required.

Except if the ruling is unlawful. If so that ruling is moot.

Does that mean Misfit, that you're now going to start emailing permission requests and vetting every pic you post before you post it?

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Okay

What I hear you saying "we" can do "it" does not matter no matter how WRONG it is! Or even if Eric wanted us to do it correctly... It does not matter...

IF everyone had the help of other users, to insure that what they displayed for Graphics was Okay... Then this Forum Thread would not be here... Or others, unknowing would not be in the middle. Most courts no matter, which part of the world there are in do not accept "ignorance" as a "defense."

I am sorry, I used to have more respect for you... You are not purporting "Responsible Use" of the Internet... You are promoting something else...

While I have had work issues that prevented me from solving the Chess Problem that caught my interest. I would expect that you will have the proper copyright disclaimers in the Chess Forum Thread shortly. It is a Great thread and You can quickly be corrected those issues.

I Count on You doing the Right Thing!

Pappa:

It's fair enough that you raise the question about the pictures in my "Chess Club" thread, so let me answer you directly, here and now.

These pictures are all downloaded from my "Pay-For" annual subscription with the Internet Chess Club (aka "ICC") located on the internet at http://www.chessclub.com. Go to the site and you will see that you don't have access to these pictures unless you have a paying membership.

So my use of these are authorized every bit as much as Fuzzy's use of her Milla smilies are. :)

---