|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
On May 12 2017 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:13 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen. You constantly fail to address the points that Google is just showing us what exists elsewhere. Imagine the following situation: someone posted those images on physical billboards, in public space. A company has a service that allows you to get instant views of any public location, let's say using a super satellite imaging. Should such company be forced to block those billboards from the stream? Even though you could just walk there and see them with your eyes? Because that's what Google is doing in search - it just shows you a web where you could go anyway and see the content yourself. In short, as I already said, you advocate for censorship or reality. And that is wrong. Its not about google, P6 used it as a loose example and it led people to the wrong conclusions. the issue isn't google so much as origanizations who purposely use the freedom from liability to host content that would otherwise be illegal.
I specifically used Google because of its use of software for moderation and removal of content. Reddit and 4chan are far better examples for people hosting illegal things and no one being able to hold them accountable.
The archiving websites also create another problem, when they archive things that are posted illegally and then claim it isn’t their fault because software. Though one site turned off archiving on a couple sites because “to much child porn”.
|
On May 12 2017 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:13 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen. You constantly fail to address the points that Google is just showing us what exists elsewhere. Imagine the following situation: someone posted those images on physical billboards, in public space. A company has a service that allows you to get instant views of any public location, let's say using a super satellite imaging. Should such company be forced to block those billboards from the stream? Even though you could just walk there and see them with your eyes? Because that's what Google is doing in search - it just shows you a web where you could go anyway and see the content yourself. In short, as I already said, you advocate for censorship or reality. And that is wrong. Its not about google, P6 used it as a loose example and it led people to the wrong conclusions. the issue isn't google so much as origanizations who purposely use the freedom from liability to host content that would otherwise be illegal.
He used it very specifically and even commented on the details, very clearly stating what he wants in such a case. Don't try to downplay the horribleness of his claim.
The distinction between hosting content and linking it is super important here. As far as I know, in the US, it's already illegal to even link copyright infringing content and that's terrible. You arw banned from talking about the fact that something is available somewhere? Recently, there was a push to interpret the law in the same way in Czech, which ended with the Pirate party setting up a server with links to infringing contents just to get sued and win, showing how a mere link isn't illegal undee our law. Yet, probably.
People like Plainsix are the best motivation for me to get my ass up in elections and vote for Pirates.
|
On May 12 2017 04:34 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 02:16 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
Have Trumps supporters ever actually read an interview with him? because they make no sense
Well, I didn't expect him to be this ignorant of technology, but how hard is it to know what they key selling points of a new carrier class are. FFS you build a new class of them like every 50 years. Electromagnetic launch system, more automation, more electrical power. Steam isn't inherently bad either, it's just not as flexible. Trump has a problem where he likes to talk about any subject, and have an opinion on it regardless of how much knows. Which in this case, being boastfully wrong might as well be negative knowledge.
He kinda just talks like a normal guy shootin the shit, but he has a hard time articulating his thoughts; and occasionally those thoughts bounce around a bit, kinda like a padded cell.
|
On May 12 2017 04:29 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that.
What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort. Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly? I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms. If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software. Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System. What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture? It appears on the screen of the person using their service. Is that not use? They created an “image search” option and created software to search images. I don’t think every photo should be considered stolen. But the argument that they shouldn’t ever be held accountable for anything because its software does not impress me. But again the problem here isn't the law, it's the ability of an individual to pursue their legal rights. Then sprinkled on top is that any court proceedings here would just raise awareness of the compromising content. I just feel like you're barking up the wrong tree.
You are likely right and google isn’t the best example. But also they are interesting because they compound already existing issues like stolen information. What responsibility do they have? If they know a website often hosts stolen images or goods, should they remove it from their system?
|
On May 12 2017 04:29 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:21 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
That one right there was just an example that really happened and they corrected it. However, there was a girl who’s photo was used by a lot of porn sites who’s photo appeared in a google search. She just happened to have an good selfie that porn sites used and that was her life after that.
What do people do when that happens? Is google accountable? If they correct it and it still happens later, when do you become liable? Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort. Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly? I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms. If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software. Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System. What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture? It appears on the screen of the person using their service. Is that not use? They created an “image search” option and created software to search images. I don’t think every photo should be considered stolen. But the argument that they shouldn’t ever be held accountable for anything because its software does not impress me. So if I use this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/link-preview/ohmamcbkcmfalompaelgoepcnbnpiioe?hl=endoes that mean any site that includes a link to a picture is using a picture? On the other aspect of it, if Google's use of the image is fair use (which is most likely is: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/fair-use-prevails-as-supreme-court-rejects-google-books-copyright-case/ ). If Google is 'using' the image in a fair use way then does the source of that image matter for their use? Like I think you're setting yourself up for a paradox. If google is the one 'using' the image then their use is probably fair use; if they're just passing along the image (instead of 'using' it) then how can you blame them for just passing it through? It seems like the legal spot here would be that associating someone's image to these sites is the problem, in which case it seems like defamation would apply and that is something Google has already been found responsible for (maybe not in the US, idk): https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/24/brisbane-man-sues-google-for-750000-over-defamatory-search-results . But again the problem here isn't the law, it's the ability of an individual to pursue their legal rights. Then sprinkled on top is that any court proceedings here would just raise awareness of the compromising content. I just feel like you're barking up the wrong tree.
That is not exactly as easy as you make it sound for a few reasons. Take the example of the stolen picture used on porn websites that P6 mentioned before
1. they are a public entity (a business) that can be easily found and contacted.
2. you likely haven't copy-written your personal pictures so what you can actually sue for is very minimal making it hardly worth the effort.
now how about if an individual uses your photos on a forum webpage like reddit
1. the person is not a public entity the hosting webpage is.
2. the hosting web page is not liable so all you can ask for is for them to take it down.
3. you will not be provided the contact information of the person who stole the pictures as they have privacy rights too.
4. you likely have no civil case against them as they likely got the pictures from one of your public pages like google+ (who uses that anymore?), facebook, instagram, tumblr, etc.
I am not toally intimate with the laws, but i doubt there is much you can do.
Let alone if all someone does is send you thousands of tweets a day saying "i hope you die".
|
On May 12 2017 04:39 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 04:13 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen. You constantly fail to address the points that Google is just showing us what exists elsewhere. Imagine the following situation: someone posted those images on physical billboards, in public space. A company has a service that allows you to get instant views of any public location, let's say using a super satellite imaging. Should such company be forced to block those billboards from the stream? Even though you could just walk there and see them with your eyes? Because that's what Google is doing in search - it just shows you a web where you could go anyway and see the content yourself. In short, as I already said, you advocate for censorship or reality. And that is wrong. Its not about google, P6 used it as a loose example and it led people to the wrong conclusions. the issue isn't google so much as origanizations who purposely use the freedom from liability to host content that would otherwise be illegal. He used it very specifically and even commented on the details, very clearly stating what he wants in such a case. Don't try to downplay the horribleness of his claim. The distinction between hosting content and linking it is super important here. As far as I know, in the US, it's already illegal to even link copyright infringing content and that's terrible. You arw banned from talking about the fact that something is available somewhere? Recently, there was a push to interpret the law in the same way in Czech, which ended with the Pirate party setting up a server with links to infringing contents just to get sued and win, showing how a mere link isn't illegal undee our law. Yet, probably. People like Plainsix are the best motivation for me to get my ass up in elections and vote for Pirates.
Slow down son, I was posing a hypothetical. I don’t want to take away all your internet freedoms. Just the ability to send death threats and dox people without worrying if they are going to sue you.
|
On May 12 2017 04:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:29 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:
[quote]
Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort.
Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly? I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms. If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software. Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System. What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture? It appears on the screen of the person using their service. Is that not use? They created an “image search” option and created software to search images. I don’t think every photo should be considered stolen. But the argument that they shouldn’t ever be held accountable for anything because its software does not impress me. But again the problem here isn't the law, it's the ability of an individual to pursue their legal rights. Then sprinkled on top is that any court proceedings here would just raise awareness of the compromising content. I just feel like you're barking up the wrong tree. You are likely right and google isn’t the best example. But also they are interesting because they compound already existing issues like stolen information. What responsibility do they have? If they know a website often hosts stolen images or goods, should they remove it from their system?
Should a publisher of a city map check every business for money laundering so that they could remove the bad ones?
|
On May 12 2017 04:44 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:40 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 04:29 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly? I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms. If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software. Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System. What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture? It appears on the screen of the person using their service. Is that not use? They created an “image search” option and created software to search images. I don’t think every photo should be considered stolen. But the argument that they shouldn’t ever be held accountable for anything because its software does not impress me. But again the problem here isn't the law, it's the ability of an individual to pursue their legal rights. Then sprinkled on top is that any court proceedings here would just raise awareness of the compromising content. I just feel like you're barking up the wrong tree. You are likely right and google isn’t the best example. But also they are interesting because they compound already existing issues like stolen information. What responsibility do they have? If they know a website often hosts stolen images or goods, should they remove it from their system? Should a publisher of a city map check every business for money laundering so that they could remove the bad ones?
Ok, I have changed my mind on hypothetical examples. People should be barred from the internet for posing them because they lead to discussions like this. I am willing fall on the sword for my transgression.
|
On May 12 2017 04:39 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 04:13 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen. You constantly fail to address the points that Google is just showing us what exists elsewhere. Imagine the following situation: someone posted those images on physical billboards, in public space. A company has a service that allows you to get instant views of any public location, let's say using a super satellite imaging. Should such company be forced to block those billboards from the stream? Even though you could just walk there and see them with your eyes? Because that's what Google is doing in search - it just shows you a web where you could go anyway and see the content yourself. In short, as I already said, you advocate for censorship or reality. And that is wrong. Its not about google, P6 used it as a loose example and it led people to the wrong conclusions. the issue isn't google so much as origanizations who purposely use the freedom from liability to host content that would otherwise be illegal. He used it very specifically and even commented on the details, very clearly stating what he wants in such a case. Don't try to downplay the horribleness of his claim. The distinction between hosting content and linking it is super important here. As far as I know, in the US, it's already illegal to even link copyright infringing content and that's terrible. You arw banned from talking about the fact that something is available somewhere? Recently, there was a push to interpret the law in the same way in Czech, which ended with the Pirate party setting up a server with links to infringing contents just to get sued and win, showing how a mere link isn't illegal undee our law. Yet, probably. People like Plainsix are the best motivation for me to get my ass up in elections and vote for Pirates.
If it was possible under the current law to accurately and properly deal with hosting sites that traffic in illegal content then the link wouldn't exist... dont fight the symptoms fight the disease. and im not just talking about sites hosting movies and copy-written content as we all know how illegal and actively monitored that is.
|
On May 12 2017 04:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:39 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 04:13 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen. You constantly fail to address the points that Google is just showing us what exists elsewhere. Imagine the following situation: someone posted those images on physical billboards, in public space. A company has a service that allows you to get instant views of any public location, let's say using a super satellite imaging. Should such company be forced to block those billboards from the stream? Even though you could just walk there and see them with your eyes? Because that's what Google is doing in search - it just shows you a web where you could go anyway and see the content yourself. In short, as I already said, you advocate for censorship or reality. And that is wrong. Its not about google, P6 used it as a loose example and it led people to the wrong conclusions. the issue isn't google so much as origanizations who purposely use the freedom from liability to host content that would otherwise be illegal. He used it very specifically and even commented on the details, very clearly stating what he wants in such a case. Don't try to downplay the horribleness of his claim. The distinction between hosting content and linking it is super important here. As far as I know, in the US, it's already illegal to even link copyright infringing content and that's terrible. You arw banned from talking about the fact that something is available somewhere? Recently, there was a push to interpret the law in the same way in Czech, which ended with the Pirate party setting up a server with links to infringing contents just to get sued and win, showing how a mere link isn't illegal undee our law. Yet, probably. People like Plainsix are the best motivation for me to get my ass up in elections and vote for Pirates. Slow down son, I was posing a hypothetical. I don’t want to take away all your internet freedoms. Just the ability to send death threats and dox people without worrying if they are going to sue you.
First, back off with the "son". We are likely of a similar age anyway and I see it as a sneaky method to assert that because your opinion is apparently more conservative it's also more mature, which is a very weaselly way of getting sympathy.
Second, you have explicitly stated that you want Google to remove search results. I know it's already happening, but it doesn't make it less wrong. Removing the information from Google doesn't make it not be there. It makes it more difficult for a random person to get it, but it doesn't stop a dedicated crook from getting it at all. In the extreme case they can make their own crawler. What you are advocating here is the restriction of the ability yo see reality unhindered to those with a lot of resources. Only good things will come from it, I am sure.
edit: you acknowledged in the meanwhile that the example was bad, good on you
|
On May 12 2017 04:42 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:29 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:25 opisska wrote:
[quote]
Why the fuck should be google accountable for reflecting the reality? If the photo was used on the sites, what is wrong on telling the fact? This seems to me as a eeally twisted logic. Google ia a tool to see what is on the internet, it is not responsible for what it shows if it is the reality of the internet and I sure as hell don't want it to redact it according to someone's comfort.
Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly? I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms. If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software. Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System. What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture? It appears on the screen of the person using their service. Is that not use? They created an “image search” option and created software to search images. I don’t think every photo should be considered stolen. But the argument that they shouldn’t ever be held accountable for anything because its software does not impress me. So if I use this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/link-preview/ohmamcbkcmfalompaelgoepcnbnpiioe?hl=endoes that mean any site that includes a link to a picture is using a picture? On the other aspect of it, if Google's use of the image is fair use (which is most likely is: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/fair-use-prevails-as-supreme-court-rejects-google-books-copyright-case/ ). If Google is 'using' the image in a fair use way then does the source of that image matter for their use? Like I think you're setting yourself up for a paradox. If google is the one 'using' the image then their use is probably fair use; if they're just passing along the image (instead of 'using' it) then how can you blame them for just passing it through? It seems like the legal spot here would be that associating someone's image to these sites is the problem, in which case it seems like defamation would apply and that is something Google has already been found responsible for (maybe not in the US, idk): https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/24/brisbane-man-sues-google-for-750000-over-defamatory-search-results . But again the problem here isn't the law, it's the ability of an individual to pursue their legal rights. Then sprinkled on top is that any court proceedings here would just raise awareness of the compromising content. I just feel like you're barking up the wrong tree. That is not exactly as easy as you make it sound for a few reasons. Take the example of the stolen picture used on porn websites that P6 mentioned before 1. they are a public entity (a business) that can be easily found and contacted. 2. you likely haven't copy-written your personal pictures so what you can actually sue for is very minimal making it hardly worth the effort. now how about if an individual uses your photos on a forum webpage like reddit 1. the person is not a public entity the hosting webpage is. 2. the hosting web page is not liable so all you can ask for is for them to take it down. 3. you will not be provided the contact information of the person who stole the pictures as they have privacy rights too. 4. you likely have no civil case against them as they likely got the pictures from one of your public pages like google+ (who uses that anymore?), facebook, instagram, tumblr, etc. I am not toally intimate with the laws, but i doubt there is much you can do. Let alone if all someone does is send you thousands of tweets a day saying "i hope you die".
You don't need to copyright things. It's a right granted to you automatically when you create something where copyright applies. You can technically file for a copyright I believe, but that's only to solidify you as the creator and head off any disputes about the source of the image.
|
LOL this got tweeted today
|
On May 12 2017 04:51 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 04:29 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:27 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Because they do not own that photo of that girl and have no rights to it. And she did not give them approval to plaster it all over their website when someone typed in a search for a specific type of porn. What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly? I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms. If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software. Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System. What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture? It appears on the screen of the person using their service. Is that not use? They created an “image search” option and created software to search images. I don’t think every photo should be considered stolen. But the argument that they shouldn’t ever be held accountable for anything because its software does not impress me. So if I use this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/link-preview/ohmamcbkcmfalompaelgoepcnbnpiioe?hl=endoes that mean any site that includes a link to a picture is using a picture? On the other aspect of it, if Google's use of the image is fair use (which is most likely is: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/fair-use-prevails-as-supreme-court-rejects-google-books-copyright-case/ ). If Google is 'using' the image in a fair use way then does the source of that image matter for their use? Like I think you're setting yourself up for a paradox. If google is the one 'using' the image then their use is probably fair use; if they're just passing along the image (instead of 'using' it) then how can you blame them for just passing it through? It seems like the legal spot here would be that associating someone's image to these sites is the problem, in which case it seems like defamation would apply and that is something Google has already been found responsible for (maybe not in the US, idk): https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/24/brisbane-man-sues-google-for-750000-over-defamatory-search-results . But again the problem here isn't the law, it's the ability of an individual to pursue their legal rights. Then sprinkled on top is that any court proceedings here would just raise awareness of the compromising content. I just feel like you're barking up the wrong tree. That is not exactly as easy as you make it sound for a few reasons. Take the example of the stolen picture used on porn websites that P6 mentioned before 1. they are a public entity (a business) that can be easily found and contacted. 2. you likely haven't copy-written your personal pictures so what you can actually sue for is very minimal making it hardly worth the effort. now how about if an individual uses your photos on a forum webpage like reddit 1. the person is not a public entity the hosting webpage is. 2. the hosting web page is not liable so all you can ask for is for them to take it down. 3. you will not be provided the contact information of the person who stole the pictures as they have privacy rights too. 4. you likely have no civil case against them as they likely got the pictures from one of your public pages like google+ (who uses that anymore?), facebook, instagram, tumblr, etc. I am not toally intimate with the laws, but i doubt there is much you can do. Let alone if all someone does is send you thousands of tweets a day saying "i hope you die". You don't need to copyright things. It's a right granted to you automatically when you create something where copyright applies. You can technically file for a copyright I believe, but that's only to solidify you as the creator and head off any disputes about the source of the image.
Right, but without a copyright my claim for damages is extremely limited and not worth the 1000 bucks to have a lawyer look into it. Referring back to point #2 in the first example. if the victim will lose more by claiming a right than by relinquishing it we cannot say that the law (which is the whole crux of this discussion) is adequate.
|
On May 12 2017 04:55 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:51 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 04:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 04:29 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:29 opisska wrote:
[quote]
What? So you want Google image search to be immediately removed, because it shows images hosted in other sites to which Google doesn't have rights, I am understanding you correctly?
I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms. If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software. Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System. What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture? It appears on the screen of the person using their service. Is that not use? They created an “image search” option and created software to search images. I don’t think every photo should be considered stolen. But the argument that they shouldn’t ever be held accountable for anything because its software does not impress me. So if I use this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/link-preview/ohmamcbkcmfalompaelgoepcnbnpiioe?hl=endoes that mean any site that includes a link to a picture is using a picture? On the other aspect of it, if Google's use of the image is fair use (which is most likely is: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/fair-use-prevails-as-supreme-court-rejects-google-books-copyright-case/ ). If Google is 'using' the image in a fair use way then does the source of that image matter for their use? Like I think you're setting yourself up for a paradox. If google is the one 'using' the image then their use is probably fair use; if they're just passing along the image (instead of 'using' it) then how can you blame them for just passing it through? It seems like the legal spot here would be that associating someone's image to these sites is the problem, in which case it seems like defamation would apply and that is something Google has already been found responsible for (maybe not in the US, idk): https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/24/brisbane-man-sues-google-for-750000-over-defamatory-search-results . But again the problem here isn't the law, it's the ability of an individual to pursue their legal rights. Then sprinkled on top is that any court proceedings here would just raise awareness of the compromising content. I just feel like you're barking up the wrong tree. That is not exactly as easy as you make it sound for a few reasons. Take the example of the stolen picture used on porn websites that P6 mentioned before 1. they are a public entity (a business) that can be easily found and contacted. 2. you likely haven't copy-written your personal pictures so what you can actually sue for is very minimal making it hardly worth the effort. now how about if an individual uses your photos on a forum webpage like reddit 1. the person is not a public entity the hosting webpage is. 2. the hosting web page is not liable so all you can ask for is for them to take it down. 3. you will not be provided the contact information of the person who stole the pictures as they have privacy rights too. 4. you likely have no civil case against them as they likely got the pictures from one of your public pages like google+ (who uses that anymore?), facebook, instagram, tumblr, etc. I am not toally intimate with the laws, but i doubt there is much you can do. Let alone if all someone does is send you thousands of tweets a day saying "i hope you die". You don't need to copyright things. It's a right granted to you automatically when you create something where copyright applies. You can technically file for a copyright I believe, but that's only to solidify you as the creator and head off any disputes about the source of the image. Right, but without a copyright my claim for damages is extremely limited and not worth the 1000 bucks to have a lawyer look into it. Referring back to point #2 in the first example. if the victim will lose more by claiming a right than by relinquishing it we cannot say that the law (which is the whole crux of this discussion) is adequate.
A good example is the limited recourse that people have when communities on the internet decide to stalk them. There are several communities on reddit and other image sharing sites that can latch onto a person and decide to get involved with every section of their life. Often these are teenage or college girls that happen to attract the attention of these groups for whatever reason. And the power dynamic between those people and the groups that stalk them is way off.
|
On May 12 2017 04:51 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:43 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 04:39 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 04:27 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 04:13 opisska wrote:On May 12 2017 03:58 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 KwarK wrote:
You're blaming the volunteer librarian for plagiarism in a book they didn't write or put in the library. This librarian is Google, is worth billions and is directly profiting off the photo someone stole. If we are going to go through shitty analogies, pawn shops should be able to profit from stolen goods as long as they create a system that assure they don’t know the goods are stolen. You constantly fail to address the points that Google is just showing us what exists elsewhere. Imagine the following situation: someone posted those images on physical billboards, in public space. A company has a service that allows you to get instant views of any public location, let's say using a super satellite imaging. Should such company be forced to block those billboards from the stream? Even though you could just walk there and see them with your eyes? Because that's what Google is doing in search - it just shows you a web where you could go anyway and see the content yourself. In short, as I already said, you advocate for censorship or reality. And that is wrong. Its not about google, P6 used it as a loose example and it led people to the wrong conclusions. the issue isn't google so much as origanizations who purposely use the freedom from liability to host content that would otherwise be illegal. He used it very specifically and even commented on the details, very clearly stating what he wants in such a case. Don't try to downplay the horribleness of his claim. The distinction between hosting content and linking it is super important here. As far as I know, in the US, it's already illegal to even link copyright infringing content and that's terrible. You arw banned from talking about the fact that something is available somewhere? Recently, there was a push to interpret the law in the same way in Czech, which ended with the Pirate party setting up a server with links to infringing contents just to get sued and win, showing how a mere link isn't illegal undee our law. Yet, probably. People like Plainsix are the best motivation for me to get my ass up in elections and vote for Pirates. Slow down son, I was posing a hypothetical. I don’t want to take away all your internet freedoms. Just the ability to send death threats and dox people without worrying if they are going to sue you. First, back off with the "son". We are likely of a similar age anyway and I see it as a sneaky method to assert that because your opinion is apparently more conservative it's also more mature, which is a very weaselly way of getting sympathy. Second, you have explicitly stated that you want Google to remove search results. I know it's already happening, but it doesn't make it less wrong. Removing the information from Google doesn't make it not be there. It makes it more difficult for a random person to get it, but it doesn't stop a dedicated crook from getting it at all. In the extreme case they can make their own crawler. What you are advocating here is the restriction of the ability yo see reality unhindered to those with a lot of resources. Only good things will come from it, I am sure. edit: you acknowledged in the meanwhile that the example was bad, good on you
I used “son” because I’m trying to have a discussion about the power dynamic of the internet and the limited remedies people have to protect themselves from it and you are kinda losing your shit. You seem to be invested in arguing with some hypothetical person making the argument you hate. I am not that person.
|
On May 12 2017 05:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 04:55 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 04:51 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 04:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 04:29 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:On May 12 2017 03:30 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I would like Google to be held liable to the same degree I would be held for using a photo of someone without permission. I would like them to be held accountable to the same degree that I would be. Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books. It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms. If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software. Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System. What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture? It appears on the screen of the person using their service. Is that not use? They created an “image search” option and created software to search images. I don’t think every photo should be considered stolen. But the argument that they shouldn’t ever be held accountable for anything because its software does not impress me. So if I use this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/link-preview/ohmamcbkcmfalompaelgoepcnbnpiioe?hl=endoes that mean any site that includes a link to a picture is using a picture? On the other aspect of it, if Google's use of the image is fair use (which is most likely is: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/fair-use-prevails-as-supreme-court-rejects-google-books-copyright-case/ ). If Google is 'using' the image in a fair use way then does the source of that image matter for their use? Like I think you're setting yourself up for a paradox. If google is the one 'using' the image then their use is probably fair use; if they're just passing along the image (instead of 'using' it) then how can you blame them for just passing it through? It seems like the legal spot here would be that associating someone's image to these sites is the problem, in which case it seems like defamation would apply and that is something Google has already been found responsible for (maybe not in the US, idk): https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/24/brisbane-man-sues-google-for-750000-over-defamatory-search-results . But again the problem here isn't the law, it's the ability of an individual to pursue their legal rights. Then sprinkled on top is that any court proceedings here would just raise awareness of the compromising content. I just feel like you're barking up the wrong tree. That is not exactly as easy as you make it sound for a few reasons. Take the example of the stolen picture used on porn websites that P6 mentioned before 1. they are a public entity (a business) that can be easily found and contacted. 2. you likely haven't copy-written your personal pictures so what you can actually sue for is very minimal making it hardly worth the effort. now how about if an individual uses your photos on a forum webpage like reddit 1. the person is not a public entity the hosting webpage is. 2. the hosting web page is not liable so all you can ask for is for them to take it down. 3. you will not be provided the contact information of the person who stole the pictures as they have privacy rights too. 4. you likely have no civil case against them as they likely got the pictures from one of your public pages like google+ (who uses that anymore?), facebook, instagram, tumblr, etc. I am not toally intimate with the laws, but i doubt there is much you can do. Let alone if all someone does is send you thousands of tweets a day saying "i hope you die". You don't need to copyright things. It's a right granted to you automatically when you create something where copyright applies. You can technically file for a copyright I believe, but that's only to solidify you as the creator and head off any disputes about the source of the image. Right, but without a copyright my claim for damages is extremely limited and not worth the 1000 bucks to have a lawyer look into it. Referring back to point #2 in the first example. if the victim will lose more by claiming a right than by relinquishing it we cannot say that the law (which is the whole crux of this discussion) is adequate. A good example is the limited recourse that people have when communities on the internet decide to stalk them. There are several communities on reddit and other image sharing sites that can latch onto a person and decide to get involved with every section of their life. Often these are teenage or college girls that happen to attract the attention of these groups for whatever reason. And the power dynamic between those people and the groups that stalk them is way off.
Same applies to bullying in real life, though. A lot of things in real life, actually.
The internet amplifies the ability of people to do certain things, but illegal activity is illegal activity. Being on the internet does not have any bearing on the potential punishment one way or the other.
|
To follow up on the previous post;
Most of the things that happen on the internet are mere inconveniences. someone shitposting on your favorite forum, someone tweeting nasty things to you, getting emailed pictures of a cut off penis, getting emailed a clip from some rape porn... you see how it is escalating, but it is still just an email or a tweet, and you can delete those things and you can ignore it as best you can, but over a sustained period they can have a terrorizing effect over the victims and that, to this day is almost impossible to truly fight against. just look at "gamergate". if published on a magazine the original message that started everything would have been actionable as libel. but because it was blog "there's nothing we can do" became the only answer.
We can do better than this.
|
On May 12 2017 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 04:55 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 04:51 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 04:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 04:29 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:45 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Google don't host these things though. Google simply index publicly available information to make it easier to find. It'd be like blaming the Dewey Decimal System for a book that shouldn't have been in the library. They make it easier to find specific books you're looking for in a big and complex library but they don't own the library, nor supply the books.
It would be theoretically possible for a human internet adviser to do the same thing Google does. You could call him up and ask him for the URLs of websites that you're interested in. Google just does it faster and better by using algorithms. If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software. Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System. What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture? It appears on the screen of the person using their service. Is that not use? They created an “image search” option and created software to search images. I don’t think every photo should be considered stolen. But the argument that they shouldn’t ever be held accountable for anything because its software does not impress me. So if I use this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/link-preview/ohmamcbkcmfalompaelgoepcnbnpiioe?hl=endoes that mean any site that includes a link to a picture is using a picture? On the other aspect of it, if Google's use of the image is fair use (which is most likely is: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/fair-use-prevails-as-supreme-court-rejects-google-books-copyright-case/ ). If Google is 'using' the image in a fair use way then does the source of that image matter for their use? Like I think you're setting yourself up for a paradox. If google is the one 'using' the image then their use is probably fair use; if they're just passing along the image (instead of 'using' it) then how can you blame them for just passing it through? It seems like the legal spot here would be that associating someone's image to these sites is the problem, in which case it seems like defamation would apply and that is something Google has already been found responsible for (maybe not in the US, idk): https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/24/brisbane-man-sues-google-for-750000-over-defamatory-search-results . But again the problem here isn't the law, it's the ability of an individual to pursue their legal rights. Then sprinkled on top is that any court proceedings here would just raise awareness of the compromising content. I just feel like you're barking up the wrong tree. That is not exactly as easy as you make it sound for a few reasons. Take the example of the stolen picture used on porn websites that P6 mentioned before 1. they are a public entity (a business) that can be easily found and contacted. 2. you likely haven't copy-written your personal pictures so what you can actually sue for is very minimal making it hardly worth the effort. now how about if an individual uses your photos on a forum webpage like reddit 1. the person is not a public entity the hosting webpage is. 2. the hosting web page is not liable so all you can ask for is for them to take it down. 3. you will not be provided the contact information of the person who stole the pictures as they have privacy rights too. 4. you likely have no civil case against them as they likely got the pictures from one of your public pages like google+ (who uses that anymore?), facebook, instagram, tumblr, etc. I am not toally intimate with the laws, but i doubt there is much you can do. Let alone if all someone does is send you thousands of tweets a day saying "i hope you die". You don't need to copyright things. It's a right granted to you automatically when you create something where copyright applies. You can technically file for a copyright I believe, but that's only to solidify you as the creator and head off any disputes about the source of the image. Right, but without a copyright my claim for damages is extremely limited and not worth the 1000 bucks to have a lawyer look into it. Referring back to point #2 in the first example. if the victim will lose more by claiming a right than by relinquishing it we cannot say that the law (which is the whole crux of this discussion) is adequate. A good example is the limited recourse that people have when communities on the internet decide to stalk them. There are several communities on reddit and other image sharing sites that can latch onto a person and decide to get involved with every section of their life. Often these are teenage or college girls that happen to attract the attention of these groups for whatever reason. And the power dynamic between those people and the groups that stalk them is way off. Same applies to bullying in real life, though. A lot of things in real life, actually. The internet amplifies the ability of people to do certain things, but illegal activity is illegal activity. Being on the internet does not have any bearing on the potential punishment one way or the other.
But it does have a bearing on how likely the people are to be punished for that activity.
On May 12 2017 05:08 Trainrunnef wrote:
To follow up on the previous post;
Most of the things that happen on the internet are mere inconveniences. someone shitposting on your favorite forum, someone tweeting nasty things to you, getting emailed pictures of a cut off penis, getting emailed a clip from some rape porn... you see how it is escalating, but it is still just an email or a tweet, and you can delete those things and you can ignore it as best you can, but over a sustained period they can have a terrorizing effect over the victims and that, to this day is almost impossible to truly fight against. just look at "gamergate". if published on a magazine the original message that started everything would have been actionable as libel. but because it was blog "there's nothing we can do" became the only answer.
We can do better than this.
And we don’t need to stop it. Just provide people with a clear path to protect themselves and find out who is responsible. There was an interview a while ago from a kid who was part of a community that “swatted” streamers(take it with a grain of salt, of course). He fervently believed that the main reason swatting was so prevalent was because people believe they wouldn’t get caught.
|
On May 12 2017 05:08 Trainrunnef wrote:
To follow up on the previous post;
Most of the things that happen on the internet are mere inconveniences. someone shitposting on your favorite forum, someone tweeting nasty things to you, getting emailed pictures of a cut off penis, getting emailed a clip from some rape porn... you see how it is escalating, but it is still just an email or a tweet, and you can delete those things and you can ignore it as best you can, but over a sustained period they can have a terrorizing effect over the victims and that, to this day is almost impossible to truly fight against. just look at "gamergate". if published on a magazine the original message that started everything would have been actionable as libel. but because it was blog "there's nothing we can do" became the only answer.
We can do better than this.
You can sue anyone who posts a blog for libel. Being on magazine only means they (theoretically) have more money for you to get if you win your civil case.
Which, again, not a problem with the internet specifically.
On May 12 2017 05:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 05:01 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 04:55 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 04:51 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 04:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 04:29 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 04:02 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 03:55 Logo wrote:On May 12 2017 03:49 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
If I used someone’s photograph without approval and took it down in a reasonable period of time upon request, I would not be held accountable. If googles search does the same and they try to remove it, they are fine. But they are also fine if they don’t do it at all and claim it isn’t their fault because software.
Also, the library isn't running ads every time I use the Dewey Decimal System. What is 'use' here? At what point is Google using a picture? It appears on the screen of the person using their service. Is that not use? They created an “image search” option and created software to search images. I don’t think every photo should be considered stolen. But the argument that they shouldn’t ever be held accountable for anything because its software does not impress me. So if I use this: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/link-preview/ohmamcbkcmfalompaelgoepcnbnpiioe?hl=endoes that mean any site that includes a link to a picture is using a picture? On the other aspect of it, if Google's use of the image is fair use (which is most likely is: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/fair-use-prevails-as-supreme-court-rejects-google-books-copyright-case/ ). If Google is 'using' the image in a fair use way then does the source of that image matter for their use? Like I think you're setting yourself up for a paradox. If google is the one 'using' the image then their use is probably fair use; if they're just passing along the image (instead of 'using' it) then how can you blame them for just passing it through? It seems like the legal spot here would be that associating someone's image to these sites is the problem, in which case it seems like defamation would apply and that is something Google has already been found responsible for (maybe not in the US, idk): https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/24/brisbane-man-sues-google-for-750000-over-defamatory-search-results . But again the problem here isn't the law, it's the ability of an individual to pursue their legal rights. Then sprinkled on top is that any court proceedings here would just raise awareness of the compromising content. I just feel like you're barking up the wrong tree. That is not exactly as easy as you make it sound for a few reasons. Take the example of the stolen picture used on porn websites that P6 mentioned before 1. they are a public entity (a business) that can be easily found and contacted. 2. you likely haven't copy-written your personal pictures so what you can actually sue for is very minimal making it hardly worth the effort. now how about if an individual uses your photos on a forum webpage like reddit 1. the person is not a public entity the hosting webpage is. 2. the hosting web page is not liable so all you can ask for is for them to take it down. 3. you will not be provided the contact information of the person who stole the pictures as they have privacy rights too. 4. you likely have no civil case against them as they likely got the pictures from one of your public pages like google+ (who uses that anymore?), facebook, instagram, tumblr, etc. I am not toally intimate with the laws, but i doubt there is much you can do. Let alone if all someone does is send you thousands of tweets a day saying "i hope you die". You don't need to copyright things. It's a right granted to you automatically when you create something where copyright applies. You can technically file for a copyright I believe, but that's only to solidify you as the creator and head off any disputes about the source of the image. Right, but without a copyright my claim for damages is extremely limited and not worth the 1000 bucks to have a lawyer look into it. Referring back to point #2 in the first example. if the victim will lose more by claiming a right than by relinquishing it we cannot say that the law (which is the whole crux of this discussion) is adequate. A good example is the limited recourse that people have when communities on the internet decide to stalk them. There are several communities on reddit and other image sharing sites that can latch onto a person and decide to get involved with every section of their life. Often these are teenage or college girls that happen to attract the attention of these groups for whatever reason. And the power dynamic between those people and the groups that stalk them is way off. Same applies to bullying in real life, though. A lot of things in real life, actually. The internet amplifies the ability of people to do certain things, but illegal activity is illegal activity. Being on the internet does not have any bearing on the potential punishment one way or the other. But it does have a bearing on how likely the people are to be punished for that activity.
Hypothetically, yes. Unfortunately, in practice not.
The internet's really just exposed more people to how useless the court system is for smaller issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
