Thrown off MM!

Emily fine just cut to the chase:

This thread is full of people who disagree with your TOS or rather, how you guys have interpreted said TOS.
In fact, this forum is full of that.

Yeah. A whole lot of people doing exactly what I did, disagreeing with an interpretation of the ToC. Are all of them going to be thrown off for it like I was?

MiguelIB just made a remarkable statement:

I'm sorry but you're misinterpreting what was stated. This was not the case of a copyrighted image being posted. If someone sends us a DMCA take down notice, clearly claiming that copyrighted material is being used by someone that does not have permission to use that material, we will act on that notice.

In this case, the member in question asked us to censor other members' posts simply because they had quoted him. We do not believe that a quote of another member's statement, in and of itself, is copyrighted material and thus without a DMCA notice we will not edit the posts in question.

This seems to me to be exceedingly stupid. He is claiming that text is not copyrighted. If it were a picture, he says, he would remove it. But not text.

How would he remove a picture that was quoted as part of a member's post? By hiding the post. Exactly the same thing I asked him to do with my work (which included pictures). But because it was text, he won't do it.

Internet Brands seems not to understand that copyright law applies to text as well as to images.

I'm mildly concerned about his apparent lack of knowledge of the English language....last I checked "disagreed with" and "think there is something wrong with" mean about the same damn thing.

This is just a symptom of the problems. My take on it (in that MM thread)

On a more general note:

Miguel, I think its obvious that IB didn't understand what it was buying from Tyler. In reality, all you actually own is a mess of spaghetti forum code, a sucky database, the delivery mechanisms and the mindshare of people in this "industry" (Net modeling and photography.)

You don't own the things that make this place valuable. You don't own the pictures. You don't own the member profiles. You don't own the forum content. You don't own the castings or PMs or travel notices or contest entries.

If you want to make money here, if you want to retain the culture that made MM what it is, if you want people to stay and more people to join, you need to pay attention to nurturing your valuable members (and I recall a post by Brian saying that EVERY member is important.)

Sure, IB has the hammer and can ban people. But is going to war with your membership REALLY a good idea? Does it benefit you or anyone else in the long run?

Instead of fighting with Roger and banning him, why didn't you accept some of his suggestions for improving the signal-to-noise ratio on the forums? He tries to provide good information, gets frustrated because the moderators allow wrong and bad advice to be posted over and over with no consequences, decides to remove HIS content (since apparently good content isn't valued) and for his trouble he gets banned.

You guys are headed down the wrong road IMHO and I, along with everyone else posting here, want to see you do a 180 and go in a better direction.

This seems to me to be exceedingly stupid. He is claiming that text is not copyrighted. If it were a picture, he says, he would remove it. But not text.

How would he remove a picture that was quoted as part of a member's post? By hiding the post. Exactly the same thing I asked him to do with my work (which included pictures). But because it was text, he won't do it.

Internet Brands seems not to understand that copyright law applies to text as well as to images.

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa ... st11230228

There is only one avenue that I can see IB can take here that has any chance of protracting the issue: quotes of the text of others are covered under the doctrine of Fair Use.

This may be true, but would then have to survive the 4-point test, one of which asks if the amount quoted is more than sufficient to convey the meaning to which commentary is attached. If significant portions of Roger's copyright text were quoted without substantive analysis or comment, or if more than was necessary to provide such analysis were quoted, my personal (and non-legal-advice) opinion would be that it would fail the Fair Use tests.

But, as I said, it's a path they could take that would likely suffice to prevent them from losing the argument on the merits in the first inning.

There is only one avenue that I can see IB can take here that has any chance of protracting the issue: quotes of the text of others are covered under the doctrine of Fair Use.

This may be true, but would then have to survive the 4-point test, one of which asks if the amount quoted is more than sufficient to convey the meaning to which commentary is attached. If significant portions of Roger's copyright text were quoted without substantive analysis or comment, or if more than was necessary to provide such analysis were quoted, my personal (and non-legal-advice) opinion would be that it would fail the Fair Use tests.

But, as I said, it's a path they could take that would likely suffice to prevent them from losing the argument on the merits in the first inning.

-agreed.... this would never fly.

There is only one avenue that I can see IB can take here that has any chance of protracting the issue: quotes of the text of others are covered under the doctrine of Fair Use.

This may be true, but would then have to survive the 4-point test, one of which asks if the amount quoted is more than sufficient to convey the meaning to which commentary is attached. If significant portions of Roger's copyright text were quoted without substantive analysis or comment, or if more than was necessary to provide such analysis were quoted, my personal (and non-legal-advice) opinion would be that it would fail the Fair Use tests.

But, as I said, it's a path they could take that would likely suffice to prevent them from losing the argument on the merits in the first inning.

Yep. PYPI just made that argument.

This is a gross misrepesentation of what actually happened. He is trying to say that I said I disagreed with the ToS. That is not true.

No actually there is not a contradiction.

One is stating an opinion ("I think there is something wrong with the TOS").

The other is stating a fact ("I disagree with the TOS").

The latter is stating a clear intention of not abiding by our rules and the former is raising an issue.

In this particular case, the person stated he did not agree to the TOS.

Here is the actual text of the conversation that led up to me being banned:

We provide each member the ability to edit and delete their own posts however once another member quotes such posts it is our belief that that quote becomes an archived version of that conversation which we maintain the right to utilize on the site.

I disagee.

The quotations are made pursuant to a display license granted by me to Internet Brands, and subject to their statement in the Terms that the license would terminate when I took down the original. To say that anyone may copy my intellectual property in its entirety and I lose any right to it flies in the face of the negotiations which resulted in the current Terms and Conditions.

Please note that many of the articles in the list above have been registered with the US Copyright Office, and are incorporated in my books.

I will file a DMCA takedown notice forthwith, and I expect it to be honored.

Please feel free to, however our terms of service are clear and our interpretation is that these are archived versions of your text.

In the meantime I am going to be removing your profile from the site as I do not want any other material from you added to the site when your interpretation of our Terms is different than our interpretation.

Note I Did not say that I disagreed with the TOS. I clearly was stating a disagreement with his stated belief about the meaning of the TOS.

There is only one avenue that I can see IB can take here that has any chance of protracting the issue: quotes of the text of others are covered under the doctrine of Fair Use.

This may be true, but would then have to survive the 4-point test, one of which asks if the amount quoted is more than sufficient to convey the meaning to which commentary is attached. If significant portions of Roger's copyright text were quoted without substantive analysis or comment, or if more than was necessary to provide such analysis were quoted, my personal (and non-legal-advice) opinion would be that it would fail the Fair Use tests.

But, as I said, it's a path they could take that would likely suffice to prevent them from losing the argument on the merits in the first inning.

Take a look at what is at the links in the DMCA takedown notice I sent (on page 1). the quotations were in all but one or two cases the entirety of my posts. I didn't submit this over trivial posts.

-just thought you guys might find this entertaining.

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa ... age=1#last

I wish I could comment over there.

"Miguel" said, "We have, to my knowledge, never banned a member simply for stating their opinion. People should feel absolutely free to respond."

This is disingenuous. I've been told directly that I am not to comment on MM policy or I will be banned. That's just a fact. I can't participate in the discussion over there if I am to believe what I've been told and do not wish to lose my account.

Indeed, it makes me wonder if, knowing that they're certainly reading this thread over here, this post is enough to cause that to happen. If I'm banned at MM, I suspect we'll know why.

Open question to Roger: if MM invites you back after honoring your DMCA, will you go? What if they apologize and invite you to resume dispensing advise and corrections?

Yeah. And Mods and GKs and Contest Mods have to agree not to even question politely anything about the site because it might "give ammunition to the troublemakers."

So I may be getting kicked off MM or out of the PotD 18+ Contest tonight.

I recently got brigged for outing - in a thread that went on for pages in which everyone knew who was being talked about. I didn't even mention the person's name, but indicated that person had tagged me. This was outing.

Another member who used to be a GK but isn't any more happened to mention my post. That person wasn't brigged, but recieved a Cam from Dean saying he was very disappointed that the person mentioned that, and was told to not do it again.

-just thought you guys might find this entertaining.

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa ... age=1#last

How about this:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa ... st11230388

Once again with the "you don't have all the info" routine.

A note on "fair use":

The way the DMCA works, when a takedown notice is filed the site must remove the material complained of. They DO NOT have the right to judge whether or not fair use applies. If the author of the removed posts wishes to file a counter-notice, they are to put it back up. That's the process required by law.

Nobody filed any counter-notices. Even if it were Fair Use, they should take it down.

Nobody filed any counter-notices. Even if it were Fair Use, they should take it down.

That's a good point. Now my navel-gazing tendency would then wonder, what if IB claimed it was fair use and filed a counterclaim of their own, citing their compilation copyright as standing?

No, I'm sure they wouldn't do that. I just like to think up weird legal shit in my spare time (all twenty seconds of it per day).

I find it interesting, those who are saying that Roger's claim of copyright is questionable.

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa ... 536&page=4

How is that a questionable issue? Someone quoted his WHOLE ARTICLE, complete with the copyright notice!

I recently got brigged for outing - in a thread that went on for pages in which everyone knew who was being talked about. I didn't even mention the person's name, but indicated that person had tagged me. This was outing.

Another member who used to be a GK but isn't any more happened to mention my post. That person wasn't brigged, but recieved a Cam from Dean saying he was very disappointed that the person mentioned that, and was told to not do it again.

Yea, that was me. I got an RCAM from Dean that I regrettably deleted after a brisk reply of "Noted." It essentially admonished me in a very patronizing way, telling me that I shouldn't act that way, that I was expected to conduct myself better, and that I shouldn't do it again. I wasn't being punished that time, but was being warned and would be punished next time. I was told that a note was being put in my file in the mod room, and that further similar action would result in appropriate discipline.

And, FWIW, after MI launched a note went up in the GK room everyone had to agree to. It essentially said that we could either GK for MM, or go do something else for another site, but that we couldn't do both. It, prior to that, had been asked of us GKs that we not be negative about MM or share our feelings about anything we had issues with regarding the site, rules, policies, etc.

I asked to be removed from the GK group immediately after getting my moderator status here. I have no regrets.

Simply incredible....

-How does MM dispute something like that?

(referring to the article Chris has linked)

I find it interesting, those who are saying that Roger's claim of copyright is questionable.

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa ... 536&page=4

How is that a questionable issue? Someone quoted his WHOLE ARTICLE, complete with the copyright notice!

The problem is that this has now been linked on the MM thread. Which is fine by me, but Dean really wants to be able to keep people in the dark and then intone that we don't have "the whole story". People actually seeing parts of the story that he doesn't want seen will cause, at a minimum, the posts to be hidden. Or worse.

In large part they try to maintain their power by keeping information from people.

The problem is that this has now been linked on the MM thread. Which is fine by me, but Dean really wants to be able to keep people in the dark and then intone that we don't have "the whole story". People actually seeing parts of the story that he doesn't want seen will cause, at a minimum, the posts to be hidden. Or worse.

In large part they try to maintain their power by keeping information from people.

I think it might be a little late for that. If they start hiding posts in that thread, now...

It's pretty clear that this was something that just wasn't well thought-out.