Advice Required

brightspark

LiamoSail wrote:

People comply with regulations/laws etc in different ways. If I'm told something is law or regulation, I won't just blindly comply, I'll seek to understand the justification and reasoning behind it.

Society wouldn't work if people could decide which laws apply to them and which ones don't based on their own views, laws are there for the general benefit of the population not the individuals.

If you think the copyright laws (or any other laws for that matter) are too strict then you need to campaign and get the laws changed, not just ignore them.

LiamoSail wrote: »

I haven't found an answer that justifies the objection in this particular instance. Answers have referred to analogy's or situations which to my mind aren't relevant

How about the fact that everytime copyright is infringed (regardless of the loss of income involved), the more it becomes the norm and apparantly acceptable behaviour. Eventually leading to a situation where copyright effectively no longer exists.

No doubt infringing copyright here doesn't bother you, but for PCPhoto and others it's the thin end of the wedge.

AnCatDubh

Just to be clear to the forum;

There is no suggestion that the user(s?) on the soccer forum or boards.ie breached copyright albeit perhaps this is how PC Photo saw it / understood it to be.

Hotlinking technically is accomplished via a segment of text within a web page delivered by a service provider with which a users browser interprets, causing a 'linked image' to display in a users browser. It is the linked site (not boards in this case) which hosts the image that may be at fault if its not licenced to host the image. The text segment which provides the location of the image to the browser isn't the copyright of the image copyright holder.

In this case PC Photo's target to threaten legal action on should have been the media site hosting the image. This is where the copy of the image existed. However, I understand that they were licenced to host the image but i'm guessing that their licence didn't stipulate PC Photo's desire that his copyrighted material is not to be made available via hotlinks (assuming that was his desire).

I'm not aware of it being proved in Irish case law but the above is accepted in some jurisdictions (see Perfect 10 [adult site] v Amazon, Google refers - wiki article). The working understanding of boards and virtually all other sites is that hot linking doesn't violate copyright broadly on the basis of the explanation offered above.

Had the image been an attachment to the post on the thread, ie. boards would have held a copy of the image on its servers which was being delivered via the segment of code referred to above, then yes, boards would likely to have been in breach of copyright. This was not the situation.

Once again (sorry to be repeating myself), PC Photo is banned as I understand it for a threat of legal action against boards.

If copyright infringement does occur then it doesn't matter who doesn't care about individual's rights, or thinks 'sure what harm' or 'no one will profit from it' or any other way they may wish to dress it up. They (those that infringed the persons copyright) will be culpable. Tough on them. They are acting at variance to the law of the land.

CabanSail

In essense I agree with you. However there is a bit of a twist here.

PCPhoto has pointed out that the Sun.co.uk specifies in it's T&C's that it forbids items on it's website to be Hot Linked elsewhere. I understand that the Sun are one of the few who have paid for the image rights. So the person who posted that image was probably in breach with the Sun.co.uk and hence, I assume, also be outside the T&C's of Boards.ie too.

pixbyjohn

Why are the Mods explaining all this, very unusual for them to give such explanations in a general thread. Lets move on, whats done is done.

Saint_Mel

Not adding any of my cents to this but, just as an observation, and sorry if someone else covered this, I found it interesting/odd that at the top of Soccer Forum there is a sticky about copyright infringement etc ... and then further down in the forum there is a quite active 72 page photo thread where I would assume 90% of the images posted/hotlinked/whatever are done so without the copyright holders knowledge.

LiamoSail

Society wouldn't work if people could decide which laws apply to them and which ones don't based on their own views, laws are there for the general benefit of the population not the individuals.

If you think the copyright laws (or any other laws for that matter) are too strict then you need to campaign and get the laws changed, not just ignore them.

How about the fact that everytime copyright is infringed (regardless of the loss of income involved), the more it becomes the norm and apparantly acceptable behaviour. Eventually leading to a situation where copyright effectively no longer exists.

No doubt infringing copyright here doesn't bother you, but for PCPhoto and others it's the thin end of the wedge.

That's not what I meant about law/regulation. It's not about comPlying with those I agree with, it's aboutI understanding the rationale behind those laws, whether or not I believe them to be necessary

Agree with your points about copyright infringement, and contrary to my stance in this instance, I do respect copyright to an extent (I don't download music/films illegally)

I would however maintain that there's a lot to be said about picking your battles. The likes of this (supposed, legally i dont know what the standing is) infringement should not be illegal once it's available online. If it weren't, it would go some way to ensuring breech of coPy right does not become the norm

As an example, someOne who sees no issue with the soccer forum example may then adapt a no respect attitude towards copyright. However, if the above example were considered fine, then perhaps people would base the seriousness on which they consider copyright on a more serious infringement, and perhaps then have a greater respect/appreciation for the infringement


Edit: I'm on the phone so the quote's aren't formatted. Haven't a clue how to do it

AnCatDubh

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Why are the Mods explaining all this, very unusual for them to give such explanations in a general thread. Lets move on, whats done is done.

Speaking for myself only here John, I think i've contributed to this thread 3 times;

First to point people to the prison thread where they could read all about it and make their own minds up,

Second time as PC Photo's character was being called into question. This really annoyed me as I knew to the contrary and how valuable a contributor he could be on this forum. PC Photo wasn't able to defend himself as he's banned and I would happily defend anyone in a similar manner where I knew inaccuracies were being posted about them.

Third contribution was posted as the issue dragged on to broadly go around in circles, so I hoped that I could clarify for people that there were no issues of copyright present.

Apologies if you think I was being excessive but 3 contributions over a ~100 post, 7 page thread is hardly hogging the floor imho.

(oh, and i type too much usually )

pixbyjohn

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Apologies if you think I was being excessive but 3 contributions over a ~100 post, 7 page thread is hardly hogging the floor imho.

(oh, and i type too much usually )

Apologies accepted

CabanSail

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Why are the Mods explaining all this, very unusual for them to give such explanations in a general thread. Lets move on, whats done is done.

For a start, most of what I write in the forum is not as a Mod. I try to make it VERY clear when I'm posting in that capacity, otherwise it's a normal post like anyone else. In this case I have been in touch with PCPhoto and Admin to try to get this issue resolved.

mrboswell

Its a shame as mods here have pointed out. PC has been a great contributer to our forum.

He did go in shooting from the hip. Understandable, though, in the context of the image in question and as per the forum rule he got a soccer ban. Fair enough. Considering all the yokes calling for his head in that forum he's better off out of there.

I think the MODs that brought about his banning have dropped to the basement in my opinion. Having looked at the prison thread, regardless of what he did or how he acted, he gets this: "No, you get punished for acting the dick.". So much for taking the higher ground. On those grounds he should ban himself!
In the original thread the local 'confectionary' wasn't much help in dealing with it while he was in the middle of it. Probably should have been locked straight away.

Anyway I think PC should syndicate. Leave it with them and forget about this mess.

alfalad

CabanSail wrote: »

PCPhoto has pointed out that the Sun.co.uk specifies in it's T&C's that it forbids items on it's website to be Hot Linked elsewhere. I understand that the Sun are one of the few who have paid for the image rights. So the person who posted that image was probably in breach with the Sun.co.uk and hence, I assume, also be outside the T&C's of Boards.ie too.

Fair point and something I wondered about.

Agree with your points about copyright infringement, and contrary to my stance in this instance, I do respect copyright to an extent (I don't download music/films illegally)

Music/movie or photographs should it not be the same? Big companies are actually going after people who file share even though they make no money from it. So that argument it was not for commercial gain so shouldn't matter is not a valid one. What you do personally is naturally up to you but when a user posts up an illegally obtained photo should it not be the same rules as other copyright material?

Not adding any of my cents to this but, just as an observation, and sorry if someone else covered this, I found it interesting/odd that at the top of Soccer Forum there is a sticky about copyright infringement etc ... and then further down in the forum there is a quite active 72 page photo thread where I would assume 90% of the images posted/hotlinked/whatever are done so without the copyright holders knowledge.

Also a good point and something that happens across the forums I would think. But something that adds to the forums as well, threads of images of beauty are well followed and certainly a good way to pass an hour in work.:D

Just on the legal action point, I know in the cycling forum there were some issues with people accusing certain cyclist of doping, even though it seems silly and it was wildly reported in the media I know those posts had to be removed to remove the risk to boards, and given it's a great service it's only right.

Oldenboard

If you try to charge every single website using your picture you will never be happy again. Get an agency onboard.