fchan

discussion

ACTA a threat to Fchan

Pages:1 41
24Report
at 28 May 2008: 09:10

>>23
There's nothing being ignored. Read up on your laws before you post such accusations, specifically the DMCA itself.

25Report
at 28 May 2008: 10:45

>>23
Y'know, that's pretty much the definition of being a furry, as in "Furry Fan."

No, you don't need to dress up in an aardvark costume. You don't have to find spiritual solace in knowing that you're actually a dragon. You're not required to howl at the moon along with your "brother wolves," nor think yourself an animal trapped in the wrong body. You don't have to be bisexual, nor subscribe to the Fetish of the Month club. There is no rule saying you have to skrtich people to show your affection, nor furpile with strangers. You don't have to wrap your lifestyle around it and you certainly have no need to misspell every word containing the letter combination of "fer" or "far" by replacing them with "fur."

All that's required to be a Furry is to like this stuff a little more than the average person and be willing to share that enjoyment with others of like mind, even if it's only a small, select number of people.

Being here strikes me as fitting that definition pretty well.

In a nutshell: The Safe Harbor provision of the DMCA removes the onus of checking if the creator's permission has been obtained from the site operator, allowing them to post user submitted material with any responsibility of adhering to copyright laws placed upon the submitter- PROVIDED that they act promptly  in removing any material when notified by the author or agents that the material is infringing upon those laws. It allows the site operator to assume the good-faith actions of the user and provides protection from being suddenly sued into oblivion because Little Timmy uploaded "War And Peace" to the website they provide for him (what happens to Timmy is another matter).

It's perhaps the sole good thing that came out of the DMCA. ISP's can't read minds or track every iota of material being uploaded, so this allows them to operate business-as-usual until someone tells them, "Hey, you user there is infringing my material!"  THEN they can do something about it- and had better, provided there's actual infringment going on.

26Report
at 28 May 2008: 10:53

>>25  here. Ignore the first half of the previous (I don't suck cocks, but might've licked that one).  Sorry about the mixed cut-n-paste.

27Report
at 28 May 2008: 13:25

Hmmm, so no more downloading fansubs, movies and J-Rock albums from Bittorrent...

28Report
at 28 May 2008: 14:13

>>24

The creators' rights -are- being ignored.  The DMCA may give a legal 'safe harbor' to the ISP and the OSP, but the practice of posting or reposting without permission remains void of any ethical consideration.  In short, it protects the OSP and the ISP, but not the artist, and is contrary to the protections guaranteed to the artist by copyright law.

29Report
Bizzle at 28 May 2008: 14:34

>>27
Like the fact that it's illegal has ever stopped anyone before.  We have survived the transitions from Napster to Kazaa to Torrent Tornado to eMule to The Pirate Bay.  Even in the event that this agreement is ratified, all we will have to do is find a new way to go about it.  Pirates will continue to do what they want 'cause a pirate is free.

30Report
at 28 May 2008: 16:36

>>28
It does contain ethical considerations, seeing how even DND notes are being honored.

If an artist posts his work in a publically available place and does not even bother to make any note of any kind, then it is safe and logical to assume that implicit consent to spreading is given.

The DMCA does not only give a safe harbour, it directly is aimed at such a situation and explicitly enables it, while still granting the artist a recourse to enact his right if he decides he does not want to allow the spreading.

31Report
at 28 May 2008: 18:06

>>1 This has no bearing on sites like fchan. They are targeting people who disrupt a company's ability to be sole controller and profiter of software. The proposal talks about making new anti-pirating laws and holds ISPs responsible if they are found harboring software pirates. Further, they'd like international cooperation so all the pirates simply move to China.

32Report
at 29 May 2008: 08:52

>>30

The argument that 'if an artist posts his work to the internet then it's okay to repost it everywhere else' is a myth that is constantly perpetuated by people who neither know nor care about copyright law.  An artist has the right to post his work anywhere he wants, but that does not mean that permission has been granted for it to be republished elsewhere by somebody else.  Implicit permission has NOT been granted, as you claim; rather, it is ASSUMED by the viewer, and erroneously so.

33Report
at 29 May 2008: 09:31

>>32
Your post is wrong. Your very first sentence shows that you have not taken the entirety of the posts before you into account and are cherry-picking to build a strawman argument.

Try actually **reading** the posts, then reevaluating the actual content of your "myth" and only post once you're reasonably sure that what you have written actually matches the reality given.

34Report
at 29 May 2008: 10:28

>>33
Take your own advice. http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html and elsewhere.

35Report
at 29 May 2008: 12:56

>>34
Point 11 there supports me and none of the others apply or are claimed here, as the existence of the DNP as well as acceptance of DND notices proves. >>32 is still completely off-base in assigning a motivation and thought process that quite simply do not exist, but seem close enough that the average reader might accept them as being in use here.

36Report
at 29 May 2008: 14:15

>>35

Actually, point 11 does NOT support you, as it specifically refers to e-mail and conversational posts... like those on this discussion board.

Nor is post >>32 incorrect as it is a direct response to the claim made in post >>30 that... "If an artist posts his work in a publically available place and does not even bother to make any note of any kind, then it is safe and logical to assume that implicit consent to spreading is given."

>>30 makes the claim, >>32 refutes it, and >>34 supports >>32's refutation with proof from the Copymyths site.

Incidentally, that's an excellent website; thanks for the reference.

37Report
at 29 May 2008: 14:58

> Actually, point 11 does NOT support you, as it specifically refers to e-mail and conversational posts... like those on this discussion board.

Practice reading. Apply it to said article. Goodbye.

38Report
Bizzle at 29 May 2008: 15:14

NoU.jpg

39Report
at 29 May 2008: 20:09

>>37

Thoroughly read.  Thoroughly understood.  The assertion stands.

40Report
at 30 May 2008: 04:38

>>39
Failed. It only cites those as non-exclusive examples of a court case where no actual damages are provable. And if you had read more attentively you would also have found that all the concepts there analogously apply to the material allowed as postable on fchan.

41Report
at 30 May 2008: 06:57

>>40
Clarify: It means you could even so still sue over emails or forum posts and reach an injunction and maybe get back some court costs, but you wouldn't be able to gain any cash from damages as there are no damages.

In essence, the stuff posted here is literally and completely exactly as legal as if i were to copy your posts and quote it over on furaffinity.

42Report (sage)
at 30 May 2008: 07:09

>>41
Contradiction. Re-read your statements. Compare and contrast the first's statement about legality with the second's. What you've said in the second is that it would be exactly as legal as stated in the first: meaning not at all.

Not that it would  amount to the proverbial hill of beans in the Real World. Still, chopping logic should not be encouraged.

43Report
at 30 May 2008: 07:25

>>42
Going ahead with good example, i'll admit that i don't understand what you're trying to say there and can only guess at what you're referencing. Please explain what you mean to say in a more clear and simple manner, preferrably using non-ambiguous references or better, quotes.

44Report (sage)
at 30 May 2008: 12:02

Again, you might take your own advice, and plainly state what you're trying to say.

Be that as it may: first sentence of >>41: statement that those actions are illegal, though more of a civil than of a criminal nature.  Second sentence: stated partial agreement with the first statement, but intimated that those same actions are NOT illegal- or at least that's how it read to me. That "clarify" you tacked on was anything but clarifying.

Now it's my turn for a tl:dr post. Let's get back to basics.

Trusting in the implicit permission to distribute simply because "I found it already posted on the net" is not a very good defense when you're called to task for infringing upon the creator's rights, nor a valid excuse for that behavior. Explicit permission is a lot better. However, the net is what it is, and that implicit permission is what most people have to work with. This does NOT free them of any complicity or responsibility for infringement, even though it might be a mitigating factor. It's still illegal if you don't have permission, even if nobody sends in the hounds.

Fchan currently sails under the flag of the DMCA's safe harbor provision- and also has a DNP in place- performing timely take-downs when nudged by the creator. They at least have the "excuse" that they're complying with those provisions of the laws and trying to be nice about it. They're filling the role of Provider under those provisions.

The posters, on the other hand, are not only not the provider but are supposedly the party responsible for determining whether or not posting the material might be an infringement. They bear the onus of ensuring that letting the stuff loose here is copacetic with the creator. They're supposed to be acting in good faith (and most do- though some newbs and idiots seem to unable to understand the idea).

If push came to shove, a halfway savvy lawyer could nail anyone playing dodgeball with copyright here in seconds flat and would no doubt find this place a fertile field bearing a bumper crop of miscreants to staple to the wall. However, as I noted in the previous posting, the likelihood of that happening is about the same as my waking up tomorrow morning and finding myself having been unanimously voted into the office of Emperor of the Universe.

45Report
Bizzle at 30 May 2008: 13:47

Tinfoil hat time.  These two are actually the same person, and he's trying to troll the rest of the board.

46Report
at 30 May 2008: 14:17

It seems like people are willing to spend hours arguing on this board but not minutes writing their political representatives.

47Report
at 30 May 2008: 15:09

> Again, you might take your own advice, and plainly state what you're trying to say.
Wasn't meant to be an advice, only a honest request, since i couldn't make heads or tails out of it. Thanks for following up on it.

> Be that as it may: first sentence of >>41: statement that those actions are illegal, though more of a civil than of a criminal nature.
Exactly, and not only "more", but categorically so.

> Second sentence: stated partial agreement with the first statement, but intimated that those same actions are NOT illegal- or at least that's how it read to me.
I wasn't saying that it was illegal or not. I was merely claiming that these two actions have the same exact legality:
* downloading an image from furaffinity, made by another person, and posting it on fchan
* copying a text post from here, made by another person, and posting it on furaffinity

What that means in essence, i meant to leave up for you to ponder.

Next part: I was originally only posting to contest these two points:
* fchan ignores the rights of artists
* there is no ethical consideration in the policies of fchan
I find both of these statements to be absolutely ridiculous and couldn't in good conscience let them stand like that, in light of the efforts the mods go to to mediate between the two relevant parties here.

--

Now, as for the legality. First off, let's go back to think about why there is copyright:
It is not some natural right of complete control over all one's creations, but a tool to make sure that culture can advance through free exchange of information, while at the same time encouraging artists to continue creating by ensuring they have the legal power to commercially benefit off their works.
It is for that reason that the act of copying non-commercial materials without explicit permission is not criminally illegal.
It is for that reason that the DMCA provides easy and fast ways for creators to enact their rights.
It is for that reason that the only gains a creator of non-commercial works can have from a lawsuit are the enforcement of their rights and any losses they have made while enforcing these rights.

48Report
at 30 May 2008: 15:27

>>46
I'm not an american, so writing to any of your representatives would be quite a waste of time.

49Report
at 30 May 2008: 18:59

>>48
You better check if your country is on the list of interested parties.

50Report (sage)
at 30 May 2008: 21:11

>>29

YAR HAR HAR!

Keep buckling them swashes, matey. You are the Robinhood of the digital high seas.

51Report
at 30 May 2008: 21:31

Honestly, it's hard for me to oppose something like this, even though it would essentially kill fchan.

When I first started going that it really, really bothered me that you could just steal someone's art and post it wherever you wanted without their knowledge or permission, and without giving them credit. Saving in private is one thing, reposting is another.
If you do that with text it's plagarism. And a lot more work tends to go into art than text.


It's something we've all gotten used to, honestly, myself included, but I'm not sure if that makes it right.

52Report
at 30 May 2008: 22:16

>>51
You totally missed the points where this will affect things beyond piracy. You are losing your privacy rights, small business will be affected, monopolies will be formed, your information is given to foreign governments who may not protect it worth a damn, sites can be shutdown with no due process, etc etc.

53Report
at 30 May 2008: 22:31

>>52

I wasn't talking about piracy, I was talking about what takes place on fchan, and every other image board on the web.


It's not something I condemn, but conversely I an not going to jump up and beat my chest over my god-given right to take other people's shit and repost it publicly without their knowledge or direct consent. We're on pretty shaky ground here and we always have been.

54Report
at 30 May 2008: 22:51

>>53
Do check >>47, specifically the last part. There is not a single bit of shaky ground here. And if you don't believe that, just keep up-to-date on the google/viacom lawsuit, as that will completely clarify things.

55Report
at 30 May 2008: 23:01

>>54

I ment moraly, not legaly.

We have the right under law, thanks to what is arguably a loop hole, but it is not exactly one I would claim as "god-given".

56Report
at 31 May 2008: 00:02

>>55
It is not a loophole, it is an intended consequence to protect the advancement of society at large.

The problem is people like you who think that copyright is something god-given.

Let me put it to you like this: If copyright would have been completely observed in the past 3000 years, including the complete illegality of any reproduction of material without consent of the author, you wouldn't even have your bible right now.

57Report
at 31 May 2008: 00:46

>>56

I have a bible?

Morality tends to be intuitive and largely opinion-driven, and I wasn't propagating any one side, just remarking that fchan stands in violation of the -concept- of intillectual property (i.e., if you believe in intillectual property at all, rules of that sort should make sense to you, even if you don't exactly embrace them).



But now that you bring the big picture up, I really want to know how you swash-buckling internet pirates think that abolishing the copyright will make the world a better place. I'm listening patiently.

And, even by modern copyright laws (which are a lot different from how things were before mass copies became cheap and feasable), the Bible has been open content for about sixteen hundred years. But nice try.

58Report
at 31 May 2008: 01:31

By claiming fchan is on morally shaky ground only by going against the concept of copyright that any author should have complete and absolute control over any of his works , you are implying that said concept is moral and as such are taking a side.

Furthermore, what i mentioned above is not what the creators intended with the copyright. The creators intended for the authors to have enough control to be able to commercially exploit it and thus have an incentive to create more.

As long as you can't prove that fchan goes against that specific concept, you can't claim that fchan goes against copyright.

---

> But now that you bring the big picture up, I really want to know how you swash-buckling internet pirates think that abolishing the copyright will make the world a better place. I'm listening patiently.

I'm not willing to go far into this, but here's a novel concept: Piracy may be free as far as money goes, but it is associated with a certain amount of effort both in research and time. As such it is in competition with traditional distribution methods on a commercial level.
Provide quality content easier and quicker than pirates do and people are willing to pay for your product.
Real life factual example: I usually don't buy any game without having completed it first, but this month i bought two games off steam for the simple reason that word of mouth told me they were good and that i could get them there far easier and faster than anywhere else.

By outlawing the unauthorized multiplication of information completely you are reducing the incentive of traditional distribution outlets to channel their efforts into providing their customers a better experience, since it is easier to stay on the beaten path and employ lawyers to beat down something that would force one to explore new venues.

---

As for the bible: Are you not aware that copyright applies to derivative works as well? Every single edition of the bible that a publisher brought out would've been fully protected under copyright. Nevermind the fact that tools the populace could use to copy those would have been outlawed as well. This means writing utensils.
If you think that to be a ridiculous claim, consider: France has actually enacted a law that does that in the digital realm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI

59Report
at 31 May 2008: 10:05

"If copyright would have been completely observed in the past 3000 years, including the complete illegality of any reproduction of material without consent of the author, you wouldn't even have your bible right now."

An interesting statement that blithely ignores the impact of history in order to make its point.

Copyright is a recent historical institution and one designed to protect the rights of the artist, so he doesn't get screwed over by people seeking to make profit off of his works, or from being prevented from making profit because of irresponsible and prolific reproductions made by third parties.  Before the institution of copyright laws, the artist got paid (maybe) once for his work, while any ambitious individual with a printing press could be paid again and again for that work.

Also, copyright is a temporary thing, so that any given work does eventually fall into the public domain after a set period of time, so even if the Bible was a copyrighted material (it wasn't) it would have been PD centuries ago; so not a good arguing point.

60Report (sage)
at 31 May 2008: 11:04

>>59
The first licensing of published material designed to protect the author was in 1650, with the Copyright Act of 1709 (The Statute of Anne) considered the premier law dealing with copyright in the modern sense. There had been protective acts such as Crown Grants and similar much earlier, with evidence of such protections on the historical record extending back to the Greek "Golden Age" and being very much on the historical record of the Roman Empire.

Just how recent do you consider recent?

61Report
Bizzle at 31 May 2008: 11:29

Bring back Snacks!

62Report (sage)
at 31 May 2008: 16:59

> Also, copyright is *meant to be* a temporary thing

There, fixed that for you. The reality however looks to be FAR more grim. With how things are progressing, i would not be surprised in the LEAST to see copyright be pronounced unlimited in the next 10 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Also, you fail to consider the chilling effects and the effects on the tools.

63Report
at 5 Jun 2008: 01:05

So far as I know, copyright is -still- a temporary thing, even with the extensions.  The only case of a permanent copyright is J M Barrie's PETER PAN, and that's a major exception to the rule.

64Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage