Excelsior the book

Precedent minus authority or force equals an example. So if this ever happens again, you'll have a really good example to show, but that's it.

Your dog-piss analogy is off. If rubbing my dog's face in urine wasn't going to stop him from peeing on the rug again, then what's the point? If the ILX precedent isn't going to stop someone from making a book again, then what's the point?

we have these people here at ILX called moderators. And we have this thing called an FAQ (soon to be revised). So I would argue that many aspects of ILX activity are enforced. Have you never seen any locked threads? General derision of trolls? Death threats towards established posters?

ps. I got my hysterical and imaginary lawyers workin' on the cease-and-desist post.

xpost yes most definitely, mr. mole. the cluster 14(c) ritual flogging stick is ready and waiting. of course, ILX would have to adequately compensate us, but you can't really put a price on the protection of your intellectual property.

Classic.

ILX didn't enforce ILX with cafepress, individuals who had their copyrights violated took up the issue. As a group entity, ILX has no standing, and even incorporated wouldn't have standing (as the FAQ explicity renders copyright back to individual posters).

Nabisco, that's fine and good, but it's got nothing to do with precedent. And that's what I was responding to.

I disagree, they can indirectly influence things as well.

ILX didn't enforce ILX with cafepress, individuals who had their copyrights violated took up the issue. As a group entity, ILX has no standing, and even incorporated wouldn't have standing (as the FAQ explicity renders copyright back to individual posters).

Technically as Andrew owns the servers, I would think he owns ILX. So I'd imagine that he could've referred to himself legally as ILX in his letter to cafepress.

I swear to God I'm letting this one go now, I'm turning into annoying 2002-nabisco.

And yes, Andrew could refer to himself as ILX - but ILX doesn't have standing to actually complain, because ILX didn't have its copyrights violated, individuals did.

And no, I'm not. But precedent has a fairly strict meaning to me, especially in a rhetorical context and referring to copyright issues.

ever hear of behavioral influence?

How do the mods stop someone from going to da Capo?

They don't. Da Capo's lawyers advise da Capo to get permission and promise payment. Then da Capo's accounts payable people screw ILXors from here to infinity.

And yes, Andrew could refer to himself as ILX - but ILX doesn't have standing to actually complain, because ILX didn't have its copyrights violated, individuals did.

Andrew had his copyright violated by both his posts being included and things being taken from his server without his permission (I don't believe the image linking thing would apply here as it's basically impossible - as far as I can tell - to prevent text theft in a technical webmaster-y way, obv. claiming copyright is non-technical).

Clearly milo's not a lawyer. I'm not one either, but just a cursory glance at current copyright laws (jumbled and misguided as they are) makes this stuff seem pretty obvious, at least to me.

Bottom line: I do believe the current ILX copyright notice needs to be expanded on.

maybe only if the site doesn't already have policies (or precedents, if you will) that copyrights belong to individual posters, as ILX does.

Anyone who posts a photo of themselves should be aware of the consequences, even moreso than their written posts. I know I thought about it before posting mine.

(x-post)

spittle, I don't know the answer to this. There might be some implied copyright or property there, I dunno.

Andrew had his copyright violated by both his posts being included and things being taken from his server without his permission (I don't believe the image linking thing would apply here as it's basically impossible - as far as I can tell - to prevent text theft in a technical webmaster-y way, obv. claiming copyright is non-technical).
Right, Andrew had his copyright violated, he had standing to complain (as did others). (I'm using standing in a semi-legal sense - anyone could, of course, write to cafepress and inform them of a copyright violation, but the only people who could actually take Mark/daCapo/cafepress to court would be the violated) Andrew wouldn't have standing as the Owner/Wizard of ILX.

He didn't have anything taken "from his servers" from the impression I got - the book was a collection of posts owned by individuals, without any ILX-owned material (which would be the FAQ and other information, I guess?). The posts are hosted on ILX's server, but ILX's guidelines forfeit any copyright claims.

(if C@llum posts one of his things and a moderator edits it - who owns the copyright to that post?)

Milo, could the individual copyright owners not sue the infringers of their copyright? Wouldn't that make a clean-cut class-action civil case? I can't imagine how somebody could argue these posts are in the public domain when it is stated clearly on this site that they are, in fact, not.
Absolutely, individuals could sue, so long as they were violated.

(The more I think about it, the more curious I am about the nature of posts to an Internet forum. Are they assumed by the courts to be similar to speaking in public, where anyone could quote you? Or are they treated as written articles? Has a court ever ruled on a case like the "selected conversations" idea?)

I've wondered about this myself

do i need copyright permission to fuckiong quote someone on a thread? i mean, for fucks sake.

just calm down. no one is buying this shitty book. cafepress wont make money. this is no different from me printing copies for myself and handing them out to friends.

no one is going to put lawsuits up... or no one should because it is a complete waste of motherfucking time.

christ. this is making me angry. just fucking chill out.

i still agree with trayce, milo and tep fwiw.

i hate you all for making me read this rubbish.

die.

Right, at least that's what the fair use doctrine says. But in a case like this, where the individual posts are, theoretically, all owned by the individual posters, then each post constitutes a separate document, constituting a "whole" unto itself, so that a quote of a single post is actually the same as wholesale copying. Except that I can't imagine that argument flying in a legal setting -- it would be like CBS alleging that every pixel of every image in every frame of a broadcast constituted a separate document.

seriously. everyone just calm the fuck down.

its a motherfucking internet message board. its supposed to be fun.

once again. die.

wouldnt that be nice?