Complete Copyright

  • Thread starter Deleted member 487
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 487

Quite right.

Threads like this exist because exercising social interaction is good for the PTSD sufferer. That interaction doesn’t have to be on light, easy topics. It can be on tough topics.

But this site is not the platform for any proselytizing of political (or religious) viewpoints.

Have a conversation. Express views. Be direct - be blunt.

But members should not turn this site into a soapbox. I don’t care how right you think you are. There are sites to go and fight the battles on. This is not one of them.

And before anyone decides to cry, “censorship”!! - this is not censorship. This is maintaining the site for its intended purpose and audience.

Which I, as a former site admin & executive moderator (of several unrelated websites), fully support. But along those lines, while the previous discussion was getting heated (and I actually do support changing the topic, believe it or not), I am heavily offended when mods removed information I provided using the BS line of copyright law.

I call it BS for a reason, Joey. If you guys think it’s getting too heated, say so. But don’t use the (GASP!) Copyright law as an excuse. You certainly do have the right to even go so far as to censor what is published here, as it is a publicly accessible-privately owned website. The only thing you cannot do, that I know of, is take what I say and transform it into something it is not. Like if I say that “I support the euthenization of stray animals infected with distemper”, you cannot say “I support the murdering of stray animals that look ill”. Well, you could, but then that could end up being a legal dispute as well.

Think about this, Joey-

“What Is Fair Use?

“In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.

“So what is a “transformative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general guidelines and varied court decisions, because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.”1

(edited to provide reference)


“One important consideration is whether the use in question advances a socially beneficial activity like those listed in the statute: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Other important considerations are whether the use is commercial or noncommercial and whether the use is “transformative.”

“Noncommercial use is more likely to be deemed fair use than commercial use, and the statute expressly contrasts nonprofit educational purposes with commercial ones. However, uses made at or by a nonprofit educational institution may be deemed commercial if they are profit-making.”2

(edited to provide reference)


“17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
(Pub. L. 94–553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2546; Pub. L. 101–650, title VI, § 607, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5132; Pub. L. 102–492, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3145.)”3


And if you question what I am talking about, which I do not object to, feel free to check the experts on the matter- the US Copyright office.4

References:
links edited out.
<Admin: links replaced>
1. What Is Fair Use?
2. Copyright and Fair Use
3. 17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
4. More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office

Joey, others, please do not be offended but what I have said here. It certainly is not my intention. I would have said something earlier, except that I was "expedited" to the ER at the local hospital yesterday morning. I had food poisoning, and it hit me hard enough that I spent all morning, afternoon and evening in the ER getting Lord-knows-what pumped into my veins. It hit me, and because of where I live, it caused severe dehydration that I couldn't manage myself. I was nearly dead when I got to the ER. Not just my opinion, but the cop that expedited me and the ER doctor. You should see both arms- they kept punching holes in me trying to get an IV in. Ah, the joys of dehydration. (insert rolling eyes icon)

<Admin merged sequential posts>

I had to remove the links because otherwise my post is refused. Guess I'm not "white/black/purple/pink/gay/straight/man/woman/whatever/you name it" enough. (pick one, I guess)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

joeylittle

Administrator
@cactus_jack - heres the thing.

One: this belongs in a help ticket. I’ll move it shortly.

Two: I don’t give a shit what you want post - so long as you

(A) take the time to pull out the relevant content instead of copying and pasting blocks and blocks of text.
(B) link source

Three: don’t lecture me about fair use. Fair use is not the issue.

In a now one year old precedent setting case, a website ran into major DMCA issues because they had some copyright content show up that shouldn’t have been there for free. Site tried to claim, it’s members posting, not us - but the site had moderators.

Ruling: on a moderated site, the site is responsible for the legality of the content.

MyPTSD’s copyright rules changed shortly after.

Fair use doesn’t always cover the legality.

and to repeat: I don’t care what you post. Just post by the guidelines. Your laziness is not this site’s problem.
 
D

Deleted member 487

Wanna be aggressive, eh? Laziness, you say? Works for me! I have checked and last I saw the DMCA did not affect print articles. Maybe I'm wrong, if so, provide me with a link. As for me providing links, the site refuses to let me. I have to remove ALL possible links or it won't let me post. Not my choice. I have been attacked for stuff I have published/copied. Every time I won. I have been threatened over and over with being sued. And every time I tell them, "go get your lawyer and have them call me. They call, we discuss, and it ends there. No suits, no charges, nothing. Because I adhere to the law, is why.
As for your abusiveness...I have never attacked or insulted you. So, quite frankly sir, you can keep your own insults to your own self.
Talking to members in that manner, unprovoked, is very unprofessional. I do not appreciate it.
 

joeylittle

Administrator
I’ve been off fetching your links. I actually don’t know why the system bounced them - it is probably connected to the time your email addy was pinging for us as invalid. Still - it shouldn’t do that. I’ve put them back into the post.

responding to the rest of your message:

As for your abusiveness...I have never attacked or insulted you.
Well, I took insult at your assumption that you weren’t breaking a rule, you were being censored because of your views.

And, that’s the same reason the “black/white/purple” comment crawled up my ass.

Look - I’m not usually this blunt. It probably means I need a break away from the site.

But you went through all that trouble to tell me why you were allowed to quote whatever and f*ck-all as much as you wanted....and the truth is: you can’t. Not for the reasons you think.

It’s for other reasons having to do with jurisdiction (not a non-profit site according to US law; not even in US jurisdiction), the role of moderators, and even some ethics about creators and their content.

I didn’t appreciate the leap to lecture. So I was direct.

Have you read the copyright policy? Consequences for copyright infringement
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 487

Here is what I wrote, in it's entireity.

Quite right.

Threads like this exist because exercising social interaction is good for the PTSD sufferer. That interaction doesn’t have to be on light, easy topics. It can be on tough topics.

But this site is not the platform for any proselytizing of political (or religious) viewpoints.

Have a conversation. Express views. Be direct - be blunt.

But members should not turn this site into a soapbox. I don’t care how right you think you are. There are sites to go and fight the battles on. This is not one of them.

And before anyone decides to cry, “censorship”!! - this is not censorship. This is maintaining the site for its intended purpose and audience.

Which I, as a former site admin & executive moderator (of several unrelated websites), fully support. But along those lines, while the previous discussion was getting heated (and I actually do support changing the topic, believe it or not), I am heavily offended when mods removed information I provided using the BS line of copyright law.

I call it BS for a reason, Joey. If you guys think it’s getting too heated, say so. But don’t use the (GASP!) Copyright law as an excuse. You certainly do have the right to even go so far as to censor what is published here, as it is a publicly accessible-privately owned website. The only thing you cannot do, that I know of, is take what I say and transform it into something it is not. Like if I say that “I support the euthenization of stray animals infected with distemper”, you cannot say “I support the murdering of stray animals that look ill”. Well, you could, but then that could end up being a legal dispute as well.

Think about this, Joey-

“What Is Fair Use?

“In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.

“So what is a “transformative” use? If this definition seems ambiguous or vague, be aware that millions of dollars in legal fees have been spent attempting to define what qualifies as a fair use. There are no hard-and-fast rules, only general guidelines and varied court decisions, because the judges and lawmakers who created the fair use exception did not want to limit its definition. Like free speech, they wanted it to have an expansive meaning that could be open to interpretation.

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.”1

(edited to provide reference)


“One important consideration is whether the use in question advances a socially beneficial activity like those listed in the statute: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Other important considerations are whether the use is commercial or noncommercial and whether the use is “transformative.”

“Noncommercial use is more likely to be deemed fair use than commercial use, and the statute expressly contrasts nonprofit educational purposes with commercial ones. However, uses made at or by a nonprofit educational institution may be deemed commercial if they are profit-making.”2

(edited to provide reference)


“17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
(Pub. L. 94–553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2546; Pub. L. 101–650, title VI, § 607, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5132; Pub. L. 102–492, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3145.)”3


And if you question what I am talking about, which I do not object to, feel free to check the experts on the matter- the US Copyright office.4

References:
1. What Is Fair Use?
2. Copyright and Fair Use
3. 17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
4. More Information on Fair Use | U.S. Copyright Office

Joey, others, please do not be offended but what I have said here. It certainly is not my intention. I would have said something earlier, except that I was "expedited" to the ER at the local hospital yesterday morning. I had food poisoning, and it hit me hard enough that I spent all morning, afternoon and evening in the ER getting Lord-knows-what pumped into my veins. It hit me, and because of where I live, it caused severe dehydration that I couldn't manage myself. I was nearly dead when I got to the ER. Not just my opinion, but the cop that expedited me and the ER doctor. You should see both arms- they kept punching holes in me trying to get an IV in. Ah, the joys of dehydration. (insert rolling eyes icon)
...............................................................................................................................................................
Quite frankly I was tired of the outright lies from other members. I was tired of the indirect insults from other members. I have said far less and been reprimanded for it, but they get away with it. I'm truly sorry you felt something was crawling up your ass over that, but yes, I do see something else there.

Go ahead and ban me, I couldn't care less at this point. After an altercation between Anthony and myself years ago, things havn't really been the same. Couldn't post links, which has been happening for a long time, really, being one of the foremost. Just because he is the "boss" does not make him God, and I told him that, years ago. It was a dispute over C-PTSD. He kept referring back to DSM-IV which doesn't recognize it. So when I discussed that with my counselor, he asked me about Anthony's credentials. Last I knew Anthony is just another PTSD victim that stated a website.
"No professional cred's? Then who the hell is he to judge IF Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (as my counselor labeled it) exists? DSM-IV was out-dated before it was published!"

So in my case, sure. Go ahead and ban me. According to Anthony I really don't have PTSD, so who gives a damn?
I'm fed up with the abuse from other members anyhow. Like I said, I have done far less to people and been reprimanded for it. I've been saving screen shots for sometime. I'll make it a point to share those with my counselor. I betcha she'll agree with me.

Have a nice day.
Or am I "offending" you in saying that?
 
D

Deleted member 487

I did one final post in the Social lounge, telling I'm leaving. Let me guess, you're gonna find a reason to dump that one as well....
 

joeylittle

Administrator
I did one final post in the Social lounge, telling I'm leaving. Let me guess, you're gonna find a reason to dump that one as well....
It's been moved to a ticket for now. Most of it would have been fine, but the question you asked Anthony is better answered here.

I don't at all think you should be banned. I read your post in its entirety - and thank you for re-reading the one on copyright.

MyPTSD is under the jurisdiction of the laws in Australia, not the US. It's also not a non-profit. It doesn't collect profit, but it's not certified as a not-for-profit. Additionally, this site isn't strictly educational. Finally, internet copyright law is changing faster in other parts of the world than it is here in the US - but recent caselaw, and even current proposed EU legislation, would make MyPTSD liable for anything posted on it, including royalties owed on protected material.

And this is why following the tighter guidelines for 'fair use' has been my rule of thumb. I do know them quite well, and work with them daily.

No, 'have a nice day' doesn't offend me. Really - I was very very bothered by the attitude you took, that you were being censored, when you actually weren't.

I don't know your history with Anthony. In our own history, the only thing that we've tangled over is my trying to get you to re-validate your email address, which you insisted didn't need to be done, even though our system thought it did. That was the reason you had trouble with links, for a good long while. I honestly don't know why you are being blocked now, unless it has to do with that. @anthony can help you, there.

As I said on the other ticket - I am sorry for my part in our argument today. I'm going through a tough time, sounds like you are too. We probably just had short fuses at the same time. On my end - no hard, no foul. I just need you to follow the rules, same as everyone else.
 
D

Deleted member 487

Yeah, I'm not not kidding when I say I nearly died. You should see my arms. 4 holes on the left and 4 on the right. They could find the veins, but the dehydration makes them hard to hit. No idea why, I'll have to Google that. But you know how IV needles are. They're big. And painful. Because of my TBI history, my brain is already compensating for the physical pain that I deal with on a daily basis, my pain tolerance isn't much. Good way to tell how far I am "down the hole"- if they poke holes in me looking for a vein and I ain't howling, I'm one step from dead.

Anthony won't apologize for the letter he wanted nor will he say what became of it. He may have asked for similar stuff from others, I don't know. He and I argued about C-PTSD when I told the group (back then) that I finally had a diagnosis, and it was C-PTSD. He had a problem with that because Complex PTSD is not covered by DSM-IV. So he questioned the professionalism of my counselor. So when I asked for an "official letter", really I already needed one for working with the state on assistance, so all I had to do is scan and save as a JPG. Actually I don't remember if it was saved as a JPG, GIF or a PDF. That was many years ago, and I was offended by it. My counselor was like really? Who is this guy again? So I sent Anthony the file, and he unbanned me. I still didn't come back for a few years, I think. My attitude hasn't changed any, as soon as everyone has to do that to be a member, I'll set it aside and forget about it. But he won't make that a rule for joining.

It really doesn't bother me to tell people that I have it. If it scares people, too bad. I know that my previous experiences that led up to having C-PTSD also taught me how to survive. Anyone else without what I was taught to do would have curled up like a little baby and died. Well, they would have at least killed themselves over it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top