Bitcoin Forum

as they say.. one picture worth a thousand words. And I have 6 pictures for you.

Edit: image removed, because copyright nazys bored the hell out of me  >:(  no offence to the copyright nazys, some points were indeed valid (ethical ones)


The above won the argument for Matt.

If you are going to infringe copyright, atleast post back to the original (I think):
http://www.bonkersworld.net/2011/06/27/organizational-charts/ (http://www.bonkersworld.net/2011/06/27/organizational-charts/)

I do not infringe copyright any more that a thousand of other places similar image is posted on. But should you want to go legal on this, I suggest you to talk to imageshack.us first.

However, if you are certain that the website you linked holds copyright on the image than thanks for your link. I also maintain that the image linked in my post is more accurate than the one in your link.

Hehe, fun.

Seriously? I'm not trying to "go legal" on anyone, I was simply suggesting you give proper attribution to the original author.  Most sites which do have this image have a via link at the bottom which allows one to (theoretically) trace the content back to its source.  Additionally, if you are suggesting that because you did not upload the image to this forum but instead linked to it on imageshack.us copyright does not apply to this forum you are wrong.  That is true in some jurisdictions, but case law clearly indicates otherwise in the US (the only thing that matters here as the forum is hosted in the US) and most EU member-states.

Saw this on Reddit a week ago wtf..

I though it was Seen on bitcoin, then on reddit, then slashdot, then digg, then big media

you replaced FaceBook with Bitcoin wtf, first replace the image with bittorrent, then lable it bitcoin.

While I'm thinking about Bit-Torrent Bram Cohen (i think) was at Luke Nosek's (Paypal) B-day got into a discussion about something, Bitcoin or Diaspora (Ilya Zhitomirskiy was there) I forget now, the alcohol and pool got to me. But Bram's opinion was not well liked.

UK is not a state of US and I am not subject to US laws, hence your point is moot.

Did not see this on reddit or elsewhere yet, thanks for posting it, enjoy the Bitcoin mix (and thanks for that bonkersworld link Matt, this comic strip is much better because of the remix lol)

Really? I didn't know that.  And apparently you didn't read my post, nor think.
The forum is hosted in the US, and thus forum rules state you must follow US laws.  Additionally, the UK is one of the many EU-member states who's case law clearly disagrees that linking != posting.  Thus your post is illegal both in the US AND the UK.

sue me

BTW



This statement of yours clearly shows that you have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. Be careful with throwing around allegations of someone being a criminal. It might be a costly thing to defend a defamation lawsuit. (Generally speaking, I will just ignore this)

So where do donations go to take the Bitcoin.org servers into space already, this is all bullshit.

Or just throw it on that crazy onion routin' system all the kids are down with.

I was simply pointing out that, though there might be some claim to fair use here, it really only makes sense to give credit where credit is due.  No point tempting copyright law, which courts tend to interpret in very different ways.  I can't claim to know UK law very well, but I do know there have been many cases where UK courts have interpreted the law there in such a way that forums or other sites which link to infringing material can and have been shut down.

The bitcoin forums having so much illegal content and discussions of illegal actions is not something that gets solved by moving the servers to a more lenient jurisdiction.  The consistent discussion of such things tends to give the bitcoin community as a whole a very bad image which only serves to keep new users from joining the community because they are put off by many people who turn the discussions into an ideological pissing match.

Too bad that this thread has disintegrated into fight of legal misconceptions. Thanks to you.

I appreciate your initial point, and that's why I thanked you to you for providing the link. If I knew who is the author I would provided a link myself.

However, there is huge difference between practice and what some people think about law. Thinking that this website will get shut-down over some linked image is naive to the extreme.

Oh, I dont think at all that this website would get shutdown for something like that, no way.  However, that doesn't mean you should break the law.  Just because there are no consequences in this case, doesn't mean you should.

For all I know, this image is public domain, I'd be happy to correct my actions should the author of the image contact me and ask for that.

Are you author of the image? Do you have definitive information about it's licensing conditions?

It was not claimed as his work, and fair-use rules allow reproduction of publically available image (just posting a link would not have been as useful).  Yes attribution might have been nice, but the post was unnecessary (ref the ensuing clutter in this thread, including this post).

btw - org charts and network diagrams with random labels would be hard to copywrite.

If you don't know the licensing status of an image, then you clearly don't have a license, which means you cannot legally post it.  If you don't have a license, then it is illegal to post, period.  When something is created, it is automatically copyright its original author, not automatically public domain.  Because you are doing a satire of the original image, you might have some claim to fair use, but that is always a questionable legal defense.

Here, corrected you.

And yeah please send it into space, deep space if possible :)

True, I'm not 100% sure that was the original, but best I can tell it is. Though the laws may be written that way, case law (at least in the US) clearly disagrees.  There have been numerous cases where pictures have been posted on one website or another and when they were reposted, the sites were sued and lost.

This image isnt strictly an org chart.  It is clearly of humorous nature and is not designed to 100% reflect reality.  Thus it can be copyrighted.

http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif



AGGGHhh  crap I don't know who the org poster was (crys) need to find him quick before I get sued.

It's the other way around.
The IRS collects taxes for the old witch in the UK.
 

I wasn't trying to suggest the humour content could not be copyright, but that generic diagrams would be difficult.

One the first point, a google image search returns lots of material, not all of which is the original with correct attribution - that doesn't appear to be an infringement worry for them.

The DOJ would likely disagree with that. Search for background on Richard O'Dwyer, of TVShack.net and TVShack.cc.

The fact is law enforcement rarely has anything to do with the Law anymore in the US. You may be seized, your property taken, your body radiated all in the name of the law no matter if you have broken the law or not.

I would disagree entirely here.  Though, yes generic diagrams of an org chart are absolutely not copyrightable, this image clearly is (in the US) for various reasons.  First of all the humor, which went largely unchanged (only the change from Facebook to Bitcoin) and secondly the specific image itself.  If the org charts were generic ones, fine, but this image isnt.  Its a (possibly hand-drawn) specific layout of a set of org charts.

As I pointed out previously, I have no concern over this causing any kind of legal issues, it would simply be nice to (attempt to) provide some form of recognition for the original author.

In any case, I think we agree here, though for different reasons, no point arguing any further.

Dear Matt Corallo,

I urge you to find the user of this forum that is using a photograph of Michael Pascazi (http://michaelpascaziscammer.com) as his avatar because that image is copyrighted as you will see if you open the URL inside the code tags
And you better find that guy fast or else the next of those pdf's/letters will come to this forum... ::)

PS: Now... Tits or GTFO!

Yep, random crap like that is all over the place.  This kind of blew up, look all I wanted to do was post a link to what I think is the original copy of the image.  At no point was I suggesting it be taken down nor that the forum will get into legal trouble for it.  That said, crap like this where people show blatant disregard for the law does result in legal issues occasionally and anyone who has any respect for bitcoin/the people who put a ton of work into running and paying for the servers that run this site should try to be careful about crap like this.

And people wonder why these forums are being divorced from bitcoin.org...

Not enough tits??  :o

Think wishfully much?

Umm, what if there is no original author?

Monkey Business: Can A Monkey License Its Copyrights To A News Agency? (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110706/00200314983/monkey-business-can-monkey-license-its-copyrights-to-news-agency.shtml)

Photographer David Slater Claims That Because He Thought Monkeys Might Take Pictures, Copyright Is His (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/16440915097/photographer-david-slater-claims-that-because-he-thought-monkeys-might-take-pictures-copyright-is-his.shtml)

I think a threat of legal action due to copyright infringement is a greater crime than copyright infringement itself.  The damage caused my such threat is quite real for a start (psycological) and if it were levelled against someone who might feel intimidated then I would be appauled in the same way that would cause others to call for banning the poster and censoring the material.

Fortunately, Vladimir seems to be more 'annoyed and amused' than 'intimidated and upset'.

When we are talking about large-scale intentional copyright infringement then a threat of legal action is distasteful to me but understandable and people involved in such operations should know to take steps to hide/protect themselves.  However, threatening people just sharing images they found on a website is despicable.

I hope that this 'threat' was really a kindly-worded polite request by the artist that their name be included near the image (very much acceptable in my opinion).  If they mentioned copyright law at any point then my reply would be, and always has been, "f*** off".

Also, I think the term is 'Nazi', not 'Copyright Nazi' just as it is 'Pirate' not 'Copyright Pirate'.  Don't worry, English is a tricky language. :)

Yes - it was interesting/fun to debate points of view.

No, another domain has been purchased and as soon as sirius returns from being MIA, the forums will be moved to there.

And that's somehow going to magically divorce it from bitcoin proper?

Will it not still remain the de facto official bitcoin forums for anyone that wants to look?

It is only a first step, don't expect it to rain unicorn dust. It makes it perfectly clear to new people that this forum is not associated with the bitcoin developers and bitcoin as an open source project.

There might be a new help/support/development-only forum later on, if so it will be small and strictly moderated not to grow into a monstrosity like this.

Seriously who gives a satoshi what the some guy with a wig wrote in a book to please the king?  If you are using somebody's work, reference it.  That way you will continue to have respect of your peers.  If you didn't, apologize, and learn for next time.  Maybe you will regain respect.

Peace -