Anyone and everyone who is given infraction points knows they were given the points, how many, and if and when they expire, and what they were for. They are given this information in a private message. We keep track of them, it's up to them to do the same. But as the rules state, acquire 10 points or more, and the software will automatically ban the member - without a mod doing anything at all.
That's not true. Formally filing copyright is not necessary at all. Anything and everything you write, any picture you take, any image you create, etc - it is all protected by copyright the moment you do it. That said, the terms of service, that every member of CT agrees to when they join the forum, clearly state that anything and everything you post here can be used by CT at their discretion. In other words, if you post something here, you have already given CT the right to do whatever they want with it. And CT policy is that once posted it stays. Unless it breaks the rules. Then we may, at our discretion, edit or even remove it. But even when we remove it, it still stays, only it stays in a private area that only the mods have access to. This is so we have complete and accurate records of any and all rule violations.
So when I received this note from a moderator... CoinCorgi, Your message (Gassing coins -AT) contains inappropriate language. This does not follow our rules. Your message may have been removed or altered. Your account's access may be limited based on these actions. Please keep this in mind when posting or using our site. ...was I given infraction points?
As I said the rules may have changed in the last 30 years. However, if someone has infringed your copyright, and one person has filed the necessary paperwork and one person hasn't, who do you think has a better chance in court? Someone who is a known photographer, or a known writer is going to have more leniency in the protection of their work than an average Joe. You can't have 2 billion people, with every stupid thing they have ever said on Twitter, every stupid picture they have taken with their cell phone be protected intellectual/creative property. Also, I was not contesting CT's use of the writing/ images. It was the assertion that he can sue based on someone else appropriating his image and spoofing it. You are never going to win those frivolous lawsuits unless you can prove financial/reputation damages. Carol Burnett sued Family Guy and Fox for using the image of a character she created (the washerwoman animation) without her permission, and she lost. What chance does VKB have? My point is, you can't just run around screaming copyright and threatening to sue, because nothing is going to happen. You just look like a blowhard.
Exactly. I've received this one on more than a few occasions... In terms of "Infraction Points," does each of these give me a "+1"?
You beat me to it. Trademarks can be, and for maximum legal protection, should be registered. But I'm almost certain you're correct about copyrights. In fact, I don't think there is any existing protocol for "registering" (or whatever else one might call it) a copyright. It's advisable to include the circle C icon and attendant language on the copyrighted material.
I don't think that's exactly what happened. If I understand it correctly, Kurt sent a DCMA takedown notice, which you've got to respond to if you want to maintain any safe-harbor protection, and then threatened to sue because CT didn't jump quickly enough to comply. As I've said before: I feel like Kurt contributed a lot here, but when confronted with a situation like this, "keep the litigious user happy" seems like a pretty risky path, and "ban the user permanently" seems relatively safe (as long as they still clean up in compliance with the DCMA notice, which they apparently did). I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the CT administration wanted to let Kurt come back, but received legal counsel that they shouldn't. But I'm definitely not a lawyer, not even a legislative assistant, so I'm probably mostly wrong.
Gives new meaning to the LLB degree Not the law degree, but (Loud-mouthed Litigious <redacted>) Where redacted might reference the marital state of one's parents...
As of 2 PM on 11 Apr 2019, this wording is still in the official forum rules - VKB nor anyone else has ever 'acquiTred' anything, infraction points included - if this specific wording was a reason, entire or partial, for the ban we're discussing, maybe the B man has a case to vacate the judgement against him - bring back Kurt on a technicality
If you owned/operated a site like CoinTalk, and one of your members took legal action against you, maybe you would not be all that eager to "bring him back" ... That is, who knows, maybe you would. Christian
There is nothing stopping anyone from going to facebook and communicating with him, maybe others will join in with you. IMO, Jim
I knew he was in Twitter. Is he on facebook too ? He does have some pretty combustible back-and-forth's on coinweek too if you search them out.
Five pages in. Is the another Carr thread?..... All this reminds me of wishing I had taken my regular drive home and avoided the speed trap. Fact is, we can’t change what’s been done. The ship has sailed y’all.
You must be young at heart, friend. Give it a few more years and you’ll understand. It’s kind of like the kid on the lawn thing, but just online.
