|
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 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.
The whole point is that because of the way the law is set up a victim cannot confront the attacker, and illegal irl and illegal on the internet are not the same thing. if you are a bully at school and a teacher sees you get in trouble. if you are a bully on the internet and the whole world sees, nothing happens... if i threaten you in person i am committing assault and you can get a restraining order. If i threaten you on the internet the response from law enforcement and the law itself is get off of the internet or get over it.
|
On May 12 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You cannot sue someone if you don’t know their name and where to serve them. If the blog hosting site doesn’t collect this information, you don’t really have many options.
|
On May 12 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +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.
But i cant sue the blog website for it so they dont have to care what anyone puts on there, whereas i could sue the newspaper directly. so they have a vested interest in making sure the information is as accurate as possible, and posting corrections whenever the information is found to be not so.
|
On May 12 2017 05:12 Trainrunnef 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. The whole point is that because of the way the law is set up a victim cannot confront the attacker, and illegal irl and illegal on the internet are not the same thing. if you are a bully at school and a teacher sees you get in trouble. if you are a bully on the internet and the whole world sees, nothing happens... if i threaten you in person i am committing assault and you can get a restraining order. If i threaten you on the internet the response from law enforcement and the law itself is get off of the internet or get over it.
I can happily assure you that law enforcement will blow you off for plenty of threats made face-to-face as well.
|
On May 12 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. You cannot sue someone if you don’t know their name and where to serve them. If the blog hosting site doesn’t collect this information, you don’t really have many options.
Same as if I anonymously put up defamatory posters about you around your city, which would also have about the same coverage as a blog has.
On May 12 2017 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. But i cant sue the blog website for it so they dont have to care what anyone puts on there, whereas i could sue the newspaper directly. so they have a vested interest in making sure the information is as accurate as possible, and posting corrections whenever the information is found to be not so.
Yes you can sue the blog website?
Unless you mean the blog was created through WordPress or something and you can't sue WordPress for providing the CMS?
|
On May 12 2017 05:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:12 Trainrunnef wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The whole point is that because of the way the law is set up a victim cannot confront the attacker, and illegal irl and illegal on the internet are not the same thing. if you are a bully at school and a teacher sees you get in trouble. if you are a bully on the internet and the whole world sees, nothing happens... if i threaten you in person i am committing assault and you can get a restraining order. If i threaten you on the internet the response from law enforcement and the law itself is get off of the internet or get over it. I can happily assure you that law enforcement will blow you off for plenty of threats made face-to-face as well.
If you threaten me in person, I can file a civil case pretty easily. If you threaten me over twitter, I cannot. And that dynamic was fine right up until the Iphone was created. Now that we are online all the time, it might be time to rethink where we put the burden of responsibility.
On May 12 2017 05:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. You cannot sue someone if you don’t know their name and where to serve them. If the blog hosting site doesn’t collect this information, you don’t really have many options. Same as if I anonymously put up defamatory posters about you around your city, which would also have about the same coverage as a blog has. Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. But i cant sue the blog website for it so they dont have to care what anyone puts on there, whereas i could sue the newspaper directly. so they have a vested interest in making sure the information is as accurate as possible, and posting corrections whenever the information is found to be not so. Yes you can sue the blog website? Unless you mean the blog was created through WordPress or something and you can't sue WordPress for providing the CMS?
You cannot sue the blog, they have liability protection under the 1996 law. They cannot be held accountable for what is posted on their site. You need to go after the person who posted it. If you go after the blog site, your case will be dismissed based on failure to state a claim which relief can be granted by the court.
For example:
https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/
Ripoff Report is a review website that let people post reviews for services they thought were bad. It charges to have those reviews “mitigated” and to have other reviews given priority. It does not check to see if the reviews are from real customers and it doesn’t’ have to because of this liability protection. This person knowingly hosts reviews that are likely fake and does it to extort money from companies. And he is completely legally protected because he does not post the reviews himself. There are been several stories written about him and this site.
|
|
|
|
|
On May 12 2017 04:52 TheLordofAwesome wrote:
LOL this got tweeted today
Which is why it should be Criminal asset forfeiture and not Civil (the victims should get to file civil suits, not the government)
|
I have never seen a greater example of why sites like Reddit need to be treated as media companies. That article is both dumbfounding and sad.
The great meme war. Please never make it into any history books.
|
On May 12 2017 05:50 Plansix wrote:The great meme war. Please never make it into any history books.
Eh, I'm thinking this might be something we want to write down and refer back to.
|
On May 12 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 05:12 Trainrunnef wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The whole point is that because of the way the law is set up a victim cannot confront the attacker, and illegal irl and illegal on the internet are not the same thing. if you are a bully at school and a teacher sees you get in trouble. if you are a bully on the internet and the whole world sees, nothing happens... if i threaten you in person i am committing assault and you can get a restraining order. If i threaten you on the internet the response from law enforcement and the law itself is get off of the internet or get over it. I can happily assure you that law enforcement will blow you off for plenty of threats made face-to-face as well. If you threaten me in person, I can file a civil case pretty easily. If you threaten me over twitter, I cannot. And that dynamic was fine right up until the Iphone was created. Now that we are online all the time, it might be time to rethink where we put the burden of responsibility. Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. You cannot sue someone if you don’t know their name and where to serve them. If the blog hosting site doesn’t collect this information, you don’t really have many options. Same as if I anonymously put up defamatory posters about you around your city, which would also have about the same coverage as a blog has. On May 12 2017 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. But i cant sue the blog website for it so they dont have to care what anyone puts on there, whereas i could sue the newspaper directly. so they have a vested interest in making sure the information is as accurate as possible, and posting corrections whenever the information is found to be not so. Yes you can sue the blog website? Unless you mean the blog was created through WordPress or something and you can't sue WordPress for providing the CMS? You cannot sue the blog, they have liability protection under the 1996 law. They cannot be held accountable for what is posted on their site. You need to go after the person who posted it. If you go after the blog site, your case will be dismissed based on failure to state a claim which relief can be granted by the court. For example: https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/Ripoff Report is a review website that let people post reviews for services they thought were bad. It charges to have those reviews “mitigated” and to have other reviews given priority. It does not check to see if the reviews are from real customers and it doesn’t’ have to because of this liability protection. This person knowingly hosts reviews that are likely fake and does it to extort money from companies. And he is completely legally protected because he does not post the reviews himself. There are been several stories written about him and this site.
I think you're confusing the site with the content/service provider. WordPress is not the "site", and the blog is not WordPress. True, WordPress might host a blog for your specific account, but that blog belongs to you, and everyone associated with you in running that blog.
The blog has no protections because it has the content is created and posted by the owner. Now, if it was more of a forum with public access to post whatever anyone wanted, then protections apply for that.
And for Ripoff Report, a 2015 case in Utah ruled that they were not a neutral publisher.
|
On May 12 2017 05:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 05:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 05:12 Trainrunnef wrote: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: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. The whole point is that because of the way the law is set up a victim cannot confront the attacker, and illegal irl and illegal on the internet are not the same thing. if you are a bully at school and a teacher sees you get in trouble. if you are a bully on the internet and the whole world sees, nothing happens... if i threaten you in person i am committing assault and you can get a restraining order. If i threaten you on the internet the response from law enforcement and the law itself is get off of the internet or get over it. I can happily assure you that law enforcement will blow you off for plenty of threats made face-to-face as well. If you threaten me in person, I can file a civil case pretty easily. If you threaten me over twitter, I cannot. And that dynamic was fine right up until the Iphone was created. Now that we are online all the time, it might be time to rethink where we put the burden of responsibility. On May 12 2017 05:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. You cannot sue someone if you don’t know their name and where to serve them. If the blog hosting site doesn’t collect this information, you don’t really have many options. Same as if I anonymously put up defamatory posters about you around your city, which would also have about the same coverage as a blog has. On May 12 2017 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. But i cant sue the blog website for it so they dont have to care what anyone puts on there, whereas i could sue the newspaper directly. so they have a vested interest in making sure the information is as accurate as possible, and posting corrections whenever the information is found to be not so. Yes you can sue the blog website? Unless you mean the blog was created through WordPress or something and you can't sue WordPress for providing the CMS? You cannot sue the blog, they have liability protection under the 1996 law. They cannot be held accountable for what is posted on their site. You need to go after the person who posted it. If you go after the blog site, your case will be dismissed based on failure to state a claim which relief can be granted by the court. For example: https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/Ripoff Report is a review website that let people post reviews for services they thought were bad. It charges to have those reviews “mitigated” and to have other reviews given priority. It does not check to see if the reviews are from real customers and it doesn’t’ have to because of this liability protection. This person knowingly hosts reviews that are likely fake and does it to extort money from companies. And he is completely legally protected because he does not post the reviews himself. There are been several stories written about him and this site. I think you're confusing the site with the content/service provider. WordPress is not the "site", and the blog is not WordPress. True, WordPress might host a blog for your specific account, but that blog belongs to you, and everyone associated with you in running that blog. The blog has no protections because it has the content is created and posted by the owner. Now, if it was more of a forum with public access to post whatever anyone wanted, then protections apply for that. And for Ripoff Report, a 2015 case in Utah ruled that they were not a neutral publisher.
And it only took years of litigation and several news stories to overcome that legal protection. And that guy made a lot of money off that site.
And I don’t agree that companies like WordPress that host blogs should automatically receive complete liability protection for what is posted on them. Not anymore. They should have some, but not to the level that was provided to them in 1996.
|
On May 12 2017 05:56 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:50 Plansix wrote:The great meme war. Please never make it into any history books. Eh, I'm thinking this might be something we want to write down and refer back to.
One thing is for sure, Democratic campaigns need to up their social media game.
|
On May 12 2017 06:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:57 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 05:18 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 05:12 Trainrunnef wrote: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:
[quote]
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. The whole point is that because of the way the law is set up a victim cannot confront the attacker, and illegal irl and illegal on the internet are not the same thing. if you are a bully at school and a teacher sees you get in trouble. if you are a bully on the internet and the whole world sees, nothing happens... if i threaten you in person i am committing assault and you can get a restraining order. If i threaten you on the internet the response from law enforcement and the law itself is get off of the internet or get over it. I can happily assure you that law enforcement will blow you off for plenty of threats made face-to-face as well. If you threaten me in person, I can file a civil case pretty easily. If you threaten me over twitter, I cannot. And that dynamic was fine right up until the Iphone was created. Now that we are online all the time, it might be time to rethink where we put the burden of responsibility. On May 12 2017 05:27 WolfintheSheep wrote:On May 12 2017 05:14 Plansix wrote:On May 12 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. You cannot sue someone if you don’t know their name and where to serve them. If the blog hosting site doesn’t collect this information, you don’t really have many options. Same as if I anonymously put up defamatory posters about you around your city, which would also have about the same coverage as a blog has. On May 12 2017 05:15 Trainrunnef wrote:On May 12 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. But i cant sue the blog website for it so they dont have to care what anyone puts on there, whereas i could sue the newspaper directly. so they have a vested interest in making sure the information is as accurate as possible, and posting corrections whenever the information is found to be not so. Yes you can sue the blog website? Unless you mean the blog was created through WordPress or something and you can't sue WordPress for providing the CMS? You cannot sue the blog, they have liability protection under the 1996 law. They cannot be held accountable for what is posted on their site. You need to go after the person who posted it. If you go after the blog site, your case will be dismissed based on failure to state a claim which relief can be granted by the court. For example: https://gimletmedia.com/episode/40-the-flower-child/Ripoff Report is a review website that let people post reviews for services they thought were bad. It charges to have those reviews “mitigated” and to have other reviews given priority. It does not check to see if the reviews are from real customers and it doesn’t’ have to because of this liability protection. This person knowingly hosts reviews that are likely fake and does it to extort money from companies. And he is completely legally protected because he does not post the reviews himself. There are been several stories written about him and this site. I think you're confusing the site with the content/service provider. WordPress is not the "site", and the blog is not WordPress. True, WordPress might host a blog for your specific account, but that blog belongs to you, and everyone associated with you in running that blog. The blog has no protections because it has the content is created and posted by the owner. Now, if it was more of a forum with public access to post whatever anyone wanted, then protections apply for that. And for Ripoff Report, a 2015 case in Utah ruled that they were not a neutral publisher. And it only took years of litigation and several news stories to overcome that legal protection. And that guy made a lot of money off that site. And I don’t agree that companies like WordPress that host blogs should automatically receive complete liability protection for what is posted on them. Not anymore. They should have some, but not to the level that was provided to them in 1996.
So you want the tech industry to solve your slow court problems? As a legal professional, this is your court. It's your infrastructure and your field that created a system that takes years to resolve things you don't like, and it's an issue that is in no way restricted to internet businesses.
And some sites I would agree are in a grey area that need to be resolved by some case law. WordPress and other blog outlets, however, are ones on the other end of the spectrum, in my opinion. WordPress provides a tightly fenced off portion of their servers, separated by your account and your unique domain. They also provide a content management system. I think there is very little confusion that a singular blog belongs to one person, or a small group of people, and that they are the ones creating the content.
There isn't even the ambiguity of Google search, where their algorithms are associating words with results. If you get to a blog, you went directly to content that someone posted and arrive at their own personal blog.
|
On May 12 2017 05:56 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:50 Plansix wrote:The great meme war. Please never make it into any history books. Eh, I'm thinking this might be something we want to write down and refer back to.
The cartoon frog did make it onto the campaign website of Hillary Clinton and the SPLC's website as a hate symbol. The 4chan faction isn't going away anytime soon. I think it'll be mentioned by historians in whatever small fashion.
|
On May 12 2017 05:50 Plansix wrote:I have never seen a greater example of why sites like Reddit need to be treated as media companies. That article is both dumbfounding and sad. The great meme war. Please never make it into any history books.
Heh well I had to analyse political cartoons from WW1 and stuff in history classes back in highschool. So I guess meme-reading will be a skillset of future historians.
Exam question: See the picture in figure 2. Describe if this meme would be considered dank in that time period and if it would have received nationwide retweets.
|
More clearly than other recent Trump-induced uproars, the reaction to the Comey firing illustrated how many conservatives now justify their defense of the president as part of a fight against a rising tide of overreaction and manufactured hysteria by the left. Mr. Trump, who has long understood the political power of demonizing his opponents as crazed and irrational, has helped stoke those resentments.
“In a word, they see him as their voice,” said Frank Luntz, the Republican consultant and pollster. “And when their voice is shouted down, disrespected or simply ignored, that is an attack on them, not just an attack on Trump.”
Many conservatives see not just a reactionary left, but menacing forces in the form of an anti-Trump movement that uses hype as a pretense to undermine their political power. Such a visceral reaction from the right, analysts said, is something unique to Mr. Trump’s appeal. And the more conservatives perceive the president as under siege from his political enemies — enemies they also see as their own — the more willing they seem to accept his version of events.
www.nytimes.com
This is a good illustration of people being willing to believe Trump's word because the media they hate is in an uproar, which must mean Trump is right. But then Trump himself admits that the Rosenstein letter was merely a pretext, proving that his word is not credible and that he's a dunce through and through. This really doesn't help the cause of Trump's supporters. They chose the wrong man to be their flag bearer.
|
On May 12 2017 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 05:56 jcarlsoniv wrote:On May 12 2017 05:50 Plansix wrote:The great meme war. Please never make it into any history books. Eh, I'm thinking this might be something we want to write down and refer back to. One thing is for sure, Democratic campaigns need to up their social media game.
Naw man did you see the sanders for president subreddit? They were next level with their game and got a ton of donations. If they had the support from any of those mods or any pro bernie people in Hillaries staff they'd have had a bigger reddit presence then The_donald. Instead they had less subsribers then the donald regularly had active users.
|
On May 12 2017 06:56 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2017 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On May 12 2017 05:56 jcarlsoniv wrote:On May 12 2017 05:50 Plansix wrote:The great meme war. Please never make it into any history books. Eh, I'm thinking this might be something we want to write down and refer back to. One thing is for sure, Democratic campaigns need to up their social media game. Naw man did you see the sanders for president subreddit? They were next level with their game and got a ton of donations. If they had the support from any of those mods or any pro bernie people in Hillaries staff they'd have had a bigger reddit presence then The_donald. Instead they had less subsribers then the donald regularly had active users.
Hillary's meme campaign basically started and ended with her inability to understand why her private email server was despised by IT workers, and her explanations and unwillingness to learn more on the subject seemed to just turn more off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
