Stolen Content From Traders Laboratory

[Soultrader 12]

I have recently found our content on our boards stolen and posted in this board here: GeckoStockTrader - the fastest, simplest most risk-free way of making a profit from the worlds stock markets! - General Forums - Stocks and Markets Talk -

 

I have contacted the website and have demanded to remove them immediately. If you spot any websites that are posting our content without credit, please notify us. This is clearly a violation of copyright as well as the members of the board who are credited for every post they make.

 

Thank you.

[JayRemy 10]

wow, nice one james

[Soultrader 12]

Well I guess they panicked and flipped out when I wrote them a very strict email. 30min after I sent them an email, they cleared out their entire forum. Now its blank with nothing on it.

[traderwilliam 10]

I suggest you put watermark on the video and a disclaimer

[Soultrader 12]

hmm watermark sounds like a good idea. Anyone good with adobe photoshop?

[TinGull 10]

Sure. Want me to do one up?

[Soultrader 12]

Yea I would love that. Something I can put at the bottom right corner of the videos. I played around with word trying to make a watermark text but they turned out extremely ugly.

[brownsfan019 17]

I'm not surprised Soul. Just make sure you have a good letter ready to go, preferably from an attorney.

 

People will do just about anything on the internet to make a few bucks, incl taking anything from another site.

 

If you do the videos in Camtasia, I think there's some ways to watermark, add logo's, etc. to it.

[dalby 10]

you should verbally state "copyright..." in every video

 

similarly, in posts you want to copyright...

 

merely writing copyright on your text with date and name is sufficient under the law to establish copyright

 

i am not sure what the law says about audio, but saying copyright 2007 John Doe could not hurt

[notouch 10]

Copyright is automatic on any written or recorded material. You don't have to write "copyright". You can do to scare people off but it's not necessary. Copyright laws are fairly uniform all over the world because of international treaties.

[dalby 10]

i stand corrected. i thought you were supposed to state it written. i was wrong.

[Guest davinagirlie]

Firstly, you should know work as a professional internet copyright legal advisor to many high-profile web 2.0 (that is to say user-driven content sites). I tell you this so we start on a level playing field.

 

Secondly, to the issue in hand. I have these points to raise:

 

a). This site actively broadcasts every single post in real-time via an RSS feed, this is not waiting for the user to find them but in fact actively 'pushing' content into the public domain via a channel that's very name (RSS = Really Simple Syndication for those unaware) , promotes the dissemination and sharing of its content, namely this forum's user posts. If James of Arizona does not want other users to take advantage of his RSS feed he should not broadcast it.

 

b). Accusations of 'stealing content' should be used only when you are sure that the statement or context is correct. You see there is a dilemma with your accusation, and not only for the reason stated above.

 

The only content that appeared on the afore mentioned site was the user post, no code or industrially sensitive material.

 

Now herein lies a problem: do you own the post that is posted to your site?

 

If you do then you can be held libel and responsible for its content, and by definition you would be held responsible for the comments of all your users. So if a terribly offensive post was posted on your forum, degrading any section of the population, you would personally be held accountable as YOU OWN THE POST. Even if you delete it immediatley someone could 'video the site'as you have alledgedly done in order to prove your 'guilt'.

 

Now thats only if you own the post or content.

 

If you do not own the post, then nobody is stealing your content because you don't ówn' it in the first place. I suggest you think hard before commencing any legal avenues sir, as i may bite you on your rear. The best way to prevent the poaching of your posts is to not broadcast them via RSS. You can't have your cake and eat it these days.

 

Thats just my professional advice. Ignore if you like.

[notouch 10]

Your literacy doesn't seem great for a "professional internet copyright legal advisor" and your legal knowledge seems even worse. The fact is that the author of a copyright work is the owner and you need the owner's permission to publish it.

 

If you want to talk big maybe you should put away your copy of "Law for Dummies" and get some proper legal advice. Oh and learn the difference between "libel" and "liable".

[TinGull 10]

Firstly, you should know work as a professional internet copyright legal advisor to many high-profile web 2.0 (that is to say user-driven content sites). I tell you this so we start on a level playing field.

 

Secondly, to the issue in hand. I have these points to raise:

 

a). This site actively broadcasts every single post in real-time via an RSS feed, this is not waiting for the user to find them but in fact actively 'pushing' content into the public domain via a channel that's very name (RSS = Really Simple Syndication for those unaware) , promotes the dissemination and sharing of its content, namely this forum's user posts. If James of Arizona does not want other users to take advantage of his RSS feed he should not broadcast it.

 

b). Accusations of 'stealing content' should be used only when you are sure that the statement or context is correct. You see there is a dilemma with your accusation, and not only for the reason stated above.

 

The only content that appeared on the afore mentioned site was the user post, no code or industrially sensitive material.

 

Now herein lies a problem: do you own the post that is posted to your site?

 

If you do then you can be held libel and responsible for its content, and by definition you would be held responsible for the comments of all your users. So if a terribly offensive post was posted on your forum, degrading any section of the population, you would personally be held accountable as YOU OWN THE POST. Even if you delete it immediatley someone could 'video the site'as you have alledgedly done in order to prove your 'guilt'.

 

Now thats only if you own the post or content.

 

If you do not own the post, then nobody is stealing your content because you don't ówn' it in the first place. I suggest you think hard before commencing any legal avenues sir, as i may bite you on your rear. The best way to prevent the poaching of your posts is to not broadcast them via RSS. You can't have your cake and eat it these days.

 

Thats just my professional advice. Ignore if you like.

 

Thanks for the reply. With regards to some things you say...I would assume video and audio copyright laws for internet based content remains quite similar. The video content here is an "original work of authorship" which would be protected under the copyright laws. If someone takes a video, does not give proper credits to where the video came from or claims it as their own, then YES it is against the law.

 

Regarding RSS, I suppose you hadn't spoken with youtube.com about their RSS feeds?

 

And please please please learn to use certain words correctly. Libel and liable are not the same. That is a term a legal advisor would very certainly not get wrong.

 

PS, for my background, I worked in music publishing in Nashville. I was there when Dreamworks got bought out, Warner Chappell's VP was fired, when the whole industry was turning upside down because of internet based content. I'm very aware of copyright laws and try to stay abreast of all the latest happenings.

[Guest davinagirlie]

You need to stand down sir, as I have the correct UK spelling of 'libel' which is to be libelous please look it up.

 

Also if you read my post and actually take it in, from the top of the thread, the argument is whether or not the owner of the forum owns the post.

 

And if you can read the english language I am agreeing with you. The owner is the author. Not the forum administrator. Therefore the forum admin has no say what happens to a post especially when he broadcasts it via RSS.

 

Step down, and look up 'libel' in a law dictionary. Check it in MS Word if you are really interested.

[Knyyt 10]

Davinagirlie-

 

BTW, every RSS also broadcast's "where" the original content comes from and also gives credit to the original author.

 

 

Interview - Rob Kasunic, US Copyright Office

.

.

.

SP: What is the rule of thumb for using content from other copyright owners when republishing online? Does the Copyright office have basic recommendations?

 

Unless there is a particular exemption in the Copyright Act for the particular use intended, get permission.

 

While there are many discussions these days about the allegedly diminishing nature of fair use in the digital environment, many use the term "fair use" very loosely. Fair use is a case-by-case determination of whether a particular use is reasonable under the circumstances, such that a reasonable copyright owner would not require permission for the use.

 

In making a fair use determination for each particular use of a copyrighted work, there are four factors that must be considered (see section 107 in the Copyright Act).

 

One of the most important factors to consider is the effect of the use on the potential market for the copyrighted work. In the digital environment, the potential effect of posting a work on the Internet can be to completely destroy the market for the work. Therefore, aside from certain very limited uses, such as a short quotation, a criticism, comment or parody of a work, of some other very limited, reasonable use, obtaining permission is the only safe course of action.

 

The Internet actually makes obtaining permission easier in certain circumstances through, for example, the Copyright Clearance Center, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or the Harry Fox Agency. It should also be understood that even if a person believes his or her intended use is a fair use, if the copyright owner disagrees with the assessment, copyright infringement litigation is one way the dispute might be resolved. It generally makes sense to obtain permission before using or republishing someone else's work online.

[Guest davinagirlie]

But as I said every single poster would have to take action against the so-called offender, not the forum admin because he does not own this post or any others posted on this forum. If he does what is to stop me posting terrible LIBELOUS content and he take the hit for it?

 

THAT IS MY POINT

[notouch 10]

You need to stand down sir, as I have the correct UK spelling of 'libel' which is to be libelous please look it up.

 

Also if you read my post and actually take it in, from the top of the thread, the argument is whether or not the owner of the forum owns the post.

 

And if you can read the english language I am agreeing with you. The owner is the author. Not the forum administrator. Therefore the forum admin has no say what happens to a post especially when he broadcasts it via RSS.

 

Step down, and look up 'libel' in a law dictionary. Check it in MS Word if you are really interested.

 

You are totally full of s**t. There's no such thing as "held libel". Libel is defamatory content in permanent form or broadcast. You can be guilty of libel but you can't be held libel. Held liable I think you meant. Surely a professional legal adviser would know that. I know a thing or two about English law so feel free to look that one up in "Law for Dummies".

[Guest davinagirlie]

Maybe you should stop trying to rip into me personally and think about my perfectly reasonable post, really trying to upstage me in a legal spelling contest is just deflecting the issue. You are really boring me. Look at the message, not the delivery, unless however you are right. ???

 

Oh and I know a thing or two about s**theads. (Moderator - if you are going to ban me you need to ban him too because he said it first... lol)

 

<<< feels like such a child saying that, but thinks she should drop down to the same level in order to get a point across.

[torero 10]

Please try to keep this debate in a civilized manner by not using personal attacks or obscenity or I may have to delete the posts. Thanks for cooperating.

[notouch 10]

Maybe if you admitted who you were instead of pretending to be a professional legal adviser people would treat you with more respect. You haven't been libelled you've been asked to remove content you had no permission to copy which is perfectly justified.

[Knyyt 10]

RSS debate:

 

<<<Laws and Technology Collide

Most people publishing content via RSS support republication of feeds. Because the technology is fairly new, the laws and legalities are still murky. It is assumed that content in RSS is protected by copyright laws but let us not forget the Internet is global and their is not a centralized body governing what is right or what is wrong. Not only does law and technology collide the laws of different countries, those creating the feed and those displaying the contents of the feed may contradict each other. It is for this reason, I would advise that publishers using RSS to assume that the contents of their RSS feeds will be syndicated and replicated.

 

 

Tips and Tricks to Protect Your Feed.

That is not to say there are not things that can be done to protect feeds. At the end of the day being proactive is the best way to protect intellectual property.

 

 

Part of feed protection is ensuring that appropriate credit is given, this can be arranged by including a copyright assignment in the final line of the Item Description field.

 

 

Additionally you can include links back to your website in the Item description field.

 

 

Use teaser copy in the RSS feed's Item description field, linking back to your website which contains the full contents of the post.

 

 

At the end of the day, protecting the contents of a feed can be daunting and limiting. Controlling your contents to ensure appropriate credit and links are included is critical. >>>

 

 

So at the point where where the proper credit of the contents of the feed are stripped out and passed off as ones own "content" is where the line is crossed. Not sure what happened in this case.

[Guest davinagirlie]

thankyou torero, and KNYYT, thats all I was trying to say, I understand that I have a bias audience here, but they need to understand the nature of RSS and as I stated earlier in this thread it can all be resolved by either killing the feed or, following KNYYT's advice.

 

Also I would like to point out that 511 loyal readers of this forum have signed up to geckostocktrader since this thread was started.

 

Hmmmmmm????

[TinGull 10]

But as I said every single poster would have to take action against the so-called offender, not the forum admin because he does not own this post or any others posted on this forum. If he does what is to stop me posting terrible LIBELOUS content and he take the hit for it?

 

THAT IS MY POINT

 

That is the correct way to use libelous, FYI. One can be held liable for libelous comments.

[TinGull 10]

And also, the forum admin is the person in those videos. He owns the videos, so it is HIS content. If proper credit was not given to him, then it is considered "stealing".