Copyright / Fair Use / Anti-SLAPP / etc.

Information pertaining specifically to tronanews.com. Board policy, user information, etc. posted here.

Re: Copyright Law

Postby a2z » Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:36 pm

This Song Belongs To You And Me: Lawsuit Filed To Declare Woodie Guthrie's Classic In The Public Domain
It's a bit ironic that this particular song should be the topic of a copyright dispute, especially since Woodie Guthrie put this as a copyright notice on one of his songs:
This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do

And also since these lyrics are part of the song:
Was a high wall there that tried to stop me
A sign was painted said: Private Property,
But on the back side it didn’t say nothing –
This land was made for you and me.

LINK:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160626/02151034825/this-song-belongs-to-you-me-lawsuit-filed-to-declare-woodie-guthries-classic-public-domain.shtml
User avatar
a2z
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:35 pm
Location: NYOB

Re: Copyright Law

Postby pcslim » Wed Jul 20, 2016 8:29 am

California Appeals Court Reaffirms Section 230 Protections In Lawsuit Against Yelp For Third-Party Postings
Whether it's a large company like YouTube or a small project like this message board, this ruling reaffirms the law as it should.
Since Yelp is an internet service provider, it is immunized, under section 230 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, for defamation contained in any third party reviews on a Yelp page pertaining to a given business. The case law on this point is conclusive…

LINK: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160716/14115134996/california-appeals-court-reaffirms-section-230-protections-lawsuit-against-yelp-third-party-postings.shtml
ALSO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act
User avatar
pcslim
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 8:24 pm
Location: Exact coordinates unknown

Re: Copyright Law

Postby wildrose » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:34 am

Public Domain: A related question is when does a copyrighted work become public domain? Here's the answer. For works published after 1977 it's 70 years after the death of the author, unless it was created by a company, in which case it's either 95 years from the publication date or 120 years after the creation date, whichever expires first. Additionally, all works published in the U.S. before 1923 are public domain. For works published before 1977 there are a number of factors, but in general almost anything published before about 1940 would now be public domain, with only a few exceptions.
User avatar
wildrose
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:41 pm
Location: middle of nowhere

Re: Copyright Law

Postby mrgreen » Sat Oct 22, 2016 7:19 pm

Internet forum / Message boards / Online Discussion Site
Copyright and slander and libel and indecent content and other things people might complain about aren't the legal responsibility of the forum owner. Instead, as logic would dictate, they are the responsibility of the person who made the post. Of course, most moderators will remove offensive content, but there are different standards applied by different moderators. Most uphold free speech as an ultimate value, but there are limits to free speech and then there is spam, trolling, off topic posts, etc. The integrity of the message board is obviously a consideration.
For the most part, though, forum owners and moderators in the United States are protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum#Liabilities_of_owners_and_moderators
User avatar
mrgreen
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:09 pm
Location: NO PLACE IN PARTICULAR

Re: Copyright Law

Postby CrustyOldFart » Mon Oct 24, 2016 6:29 am

As far as removing content goes, the people in charge of this board have been quite liberal about allowing content to remain. I haven't seen too many offensive posts, but there are things here and there which are off-topic. There are many boards which routinely prune comments which don't stay completely on-topic according to the way they define the topic. They call it curating in order to improve the quality of the content of the message board. That makes sense to some extent, but it's better to only remove posts that are clearly spammish or blatantly abusive.
User avatar
CrustyOldFart
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:03 am

Re: Copyright Law

Postby MojaveMike » Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:27 am

CrustyOldFart: Minimal curation is the way to go, but also the people running this board made a smart decision by not allowing automatic registration. There would be tons of spam if that were allowed and a huge amount of work for board administrators. Keep it simple usually works pretty well.
User avatar
MojaveMike
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:51 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere

Re: Copyright Law

Postby wildrose » Sat Dec 03, 2016 9:25 am

Every Website Needs To Re-register With The Copyright Office, Who Can't Build A Functioning System
This opens the door to bogus takedown notices. It might be best not to register and just rely on adhering to fair use rules.
The idea behind this is that by registering an agent, copyright holders will be able to look up who to send a takedown notice to. And, sure, that makes sense, but remember that this is the same Copyright Office that supports not requiring copyright holders to register their works, meaning that there may not be any legitimate way to contact copyright holders back.

LINK:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161201/18084736170/every-website-needs-to-re-register-with-copyright-office-who-cant-build-functioning-system.shtml
User avatar
wildrose
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 805
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:41 pm
Location: middle of nowhere

Re: Copyright Law

Postby surfsteve » Sat Dec 03, 2016 11:03 am

I was under the impression that insane copyright policies would go back to normal now that TPP is dead. Guess not.
You know why single men live longer than married men? Because they want to.
surfsteve
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 9:57 am
Location: everywhere

Re: Copyright Law

Postby ergot » Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:19 am

How does one know if a takedown request is legitimate? If copyright holders don't have to register, then what's to stop anyone from filing a takedown notice on behalf of a work they don't even own? Talk about dysfunctional!!!
User avatar
ergot
Ancient Bristlecone
 
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 6:58 am
Location: Le monde aliéné

Re: Copyright Law

Postby camel » Sun Dec 11, 2016 12:32 pm

300k subscribers Banned anyways!
This is interesting. The guy obviously violated copyright law, but his fans are still crying foul.
Would you walk a mile for me?
User avatar
camel
Fleabitten Varmint
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:16 am
Location: Vast ocean of sand

PreviousNext

Return to Board Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests