topic icons
-
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
How far are you willing to take that theory? If someone posted a copyrighted movie would you not be liable because it wasn't stored on the server?
While I stated no theory, that is correct. The liability is with the host, not the linkage. If you post a YouTube video here and it has copyrighted content, the takedown notice goes to YouTube, not to the millions of sites where people may or may not link to it.
But that's not something I said, nor something we discussed in any way, nor is it of concern to the community members.
However, what is of concern, is if you don't link to it and actually upload it. Then it becomes your liability for sure.
Do you have a theory that if you actually host pirated content you are not liable but directing people to find it elsewhere you are?
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It's not GroveSocial using them. It's a community forum.
Here.
That's who is putting up the thumbnails. You think that me stating the GS is not making a thumbnail system is a theory about IP copyright liability?
-
Again, the core question is... why does this concern anyone but GS? What about this is concerning to you specifically?
-
@anonymous said:
If someone posted a copyrighted movie would you not be liable because it wasn't stored on the server?
The use of "posted" here is misleading.
How ML works today: You cannot post video here. You can only link to video posted elsewhere.
How you are requesting that it work: That video actually be posted here.
We need to be clear in the terminology. You can't post a video on ML right now. You can't post an image here. You can only link to ones posted elsewhere.
-
That's not to say that ML cannot have liability for someone linking to something that they should not, that's always a potential risk. But unless media is forbidden, that cannot be stopped. Google can't stop that. Microsoft can't stop that. SW can't stop that. And all of those systems carry both the hosting as well as the linking liability, not only the linking. By not hosting at least some liability, that of hosting, does not exist. It cannot remove all liability, nothing can, but it is better without a doubt because there is simply less forms of liability involved - the big one not existing at all.
-
SW does not host their own videos either, they link in the same manner. It is only their static image files that they host themselves. They did this before S3 was popular and before it was an industry standard to use specific CDNs for this, such as Imgur.
-
This post is deleted! -
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You can't post an image here.
That's a choice you made. XO is using NodeBB and you can upload a image.
Okay, but bottom line... why are you concerned about this? XO has a completely different scale than a full on public IT community.
-
You are clearly upset about something and something does not happen as you like it to. But what you just won't say is why these decisions make you unhappy. What negative value are they providing to you. I can't fix anything or suggest a fix when I have no idea what is actually the issue you are concerned about.
If ML hosted their own media liability would go up and performance down. Things that you seem to imply you don't want. But you seem to be arguing for that scenario. But I'm unclear.
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You can't post an image here.
That's a choice you made. XO is using NodeBB and you can upload a image.
Just to be clear, XO has a lifetime total posts equal to a single day on ML. The kinds of forums that you are looking at are either massively bigger and from a different technology era like SW or massively smaller with essentially no traffic and so no concerns around performance and scale.
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
You can't post an image here.
That's a choice you made. XO is using NodeBB and you can upload a image.
But they can ALSO do it the way that we do, they do both. So given that your only stated concern is liability and they have all of the liability that ML does plus more, again I will ask: what is it that you are actually concerned about or upset about?
You have mentioned that you dislike the thumbnails, but give contrary concerns as to why you don't like them (that they might go away.) You have stated that you are concerns about liability but the only other option that you promote is increasing liability. And your concerns around potential labour, which I do not believe exist as a real risk, are not labour for you but for someone else, which is appreciated, but not understood.
I just can't figure out:
- What you want the result to be?
- Or why you want it to be that way?
- What answer I could give that would make you happy. No matter what situation I offer, you go for the opposite.
Does that make sense? Do you feel that you have expressed a concern and a desire that I am not deciphering?
-
I am assuming, but I can only guess, that what you want is something like this, where no one has avatars, there are no thumbnails and you have to mouse over to know who the OP was:
Is that correct?
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Of course GS pays for the community. Now, why are you asking?
Because your whole theory that your GS isn't liable for the misuse of images doesn't make any since.
Except that it is what the US courts have decreed and that is the jurisdiction that ML is under: " Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law".
I made no claim, but the thing that you think that I was claiming does have a court record from the federal courts that is considered decisive.
-
Why is this an issue? I get the performance argument. I hadn't noticed it personally, but I haven't been on much in the last week. The huge hissy-fit over "I don't like it so you need to run your organization the way I think it should be done" is a bit much. When YOU start paying for the bandwidth, do what you think is best and take the liability of your decision. Until then, offer a suggestion politely and then take a seat.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Of course GS pays for the community. Now, why are you asking?
Because your whole theory that your GS isn't liable for the misuse of images doesn't make any since.
Except that it is what the US courts have decreed and that is the jurisdiction that ML is under: " Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law".
I made no claim, but the thing that you think that I was claiming does have a court record from the federal courts that is considered decisive.
That case has nothing to do with bandwidth theft. That is a copyright case.
-
@art_of_shred said:
Why is this an issue? I get the performance argument. I hadn't noticed it personally, but I haven't been on much in the last week. The huge hissy-fit over "I don't like it so you need to run your organization the way I think it should be done" is a bit much. When YOU start paying for the bandwidth, do what you think is best and take the liability of your decision. Until then, offer a suggestion politely and then take a seat.
I made my reply because @scottalanmiller started randomly grabbing images for topic icons from all over the place.
Scott contends that it is not theft. I contend that it is theft.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Of course GS pays for the community. Now, why are you asking?
Because your whole theory that your GS isn't liable for the misuse of images doesn't make any since.
Except that it is what the US courts have decreed and that is the jurisdiction that ML is under: " Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law".
I made no claim, but the thing that you think that I was claiming does have a court record from the federal courts that is considered decisive.
That case has nothing to do with bandwidth theft. That is a copyright case.
Correct and copyright was what he was discussing. He changed his tactic to bandwidth later when one after another his arguments were shown to be false, made up or nonsensical. Bandwidth was his last ditch effort to come up with some reason to make it sound like it was wrong.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Scott contends that it is not theft. I contend that it is theft.
To be clear, you mean bandwidth theft, not image theft, correct? Because theft would imply the copyright case we just said this wasn't related to.
-
This post is deleted!
