But not incorrect in relation to reality. I'll say it again in case you missed it: "It doesn’t matter what’s in the legal code. What matters is how issues like this are handled in the real world of the judicial system." That's not a difficult concept to understand.
Easy to understand, but incorrect. I guess you are of the opinion that as long as you can get away with something, it's OK? That lifestyle eventually comes back to bite you (think Michael Cohen) when the evidence becomes overwhelming. Sure, one single infraction, while illegal, may not be worth pursuing, but most criminals don't break the law just once...
Ya know what's wrong with your contention Books ? You're basing the entire concept on an assumption. You are assuming, stress assuming, that a member was banned for threatening to sue CT. And then claiming that because another member, who made no such threat on the forum at all, ever, but did so elsewhere, that that is an example of selective enforcement. Well I'm sorry to pop your bubble, but no member has ever been banned for threatening to sue CT. But you're right about 1 thing, such threats have been made numerous times by numerous members. But not a one of them has ever been banned for doing so.
It doesn't have anything to do with coins. But it has a great deal to do with the forum itself. And any and all threads that are critical of the forum, its management, its moderators, its rules, etc etc - threads like that are always allowed. Always have been and always will be.
This discussion isn't about "criminals" who "get away with something." It's about common sense triumphing over a too narrow interpretation of the law. If somebody appropriates a photo you posted to the world wide web and uses it somewhere else in a non-commercial way, how have you been damaged? And if you can't prove damages, you don't have a strong case. You can hire an attorney to send a cease and desist letter, but that doesn't require a lawsuit. You really should let this drop. It's not worth pursuing further.
I don't dispute that it could be useful here (on CoinTalk). But, IMO, it should be moved to General Discussion. Whatever I guess.
The reason threads like this are not moved there is because the GD section is an "opt-in" section, which means that not all members could see it, read it, have access to it. So in the interest of transparency, they are left in the regular sections.
Oh please, the guy has 11 posts total on the forum, he isn’t an active member. But hey, you got me to waste my time reading your nonsense. Good one!
Thank you for the clarification Doug. I'll pile on then --> the namesake of this thread had it long coming. He stirred the pot one too many times, and he should have known better. CoinTalk is and will likely always remain the most lenient and accepting of disruptive posters among the big coin forums available on the "interwebs". If you manage to get banned / booted from CoinTalk, then you may need to reassess your communication skills and attitude in life, not just in numismatics. Just my 2 cents.
Well, @atcarroll, I'm announcing my return flight. I just couldn't stay away. Things are slow around here with our latest 6" snowfall...in April! If I had I would have missed some great posts. Steve
Of course! It’s not the severity of the action/behavior but the number of posts that matter! He obviously was active at least a handful of times since the offending action, including to promote his own site, but why let the obvious get in the way of idiocy? The mighty Lehigh mistaken? Silly me. This is the same mindless deflection I predicted and for good reason. So much for that intellectual honesty thing, huh? Waste your time? Puh-leez. It’s time to pull your head out and get some much needed oxygen, big guy.
Unfortunately you still don't get it! Posting a photo you don't have the rights to is a violation of copyright law. Violating the law is a crime, and those who do so are criminals. Just because lawyers don't see enough profit in it to litigate doesn't change that fact, and because they don't, the criminals get away with the crime. Why can't you understand this?
As I said, much of the copyright law is unenforceable. Carol Burnett had her copyright character used without permission by Family Guy/ Fox and lost her lawsuit. No one really cares if you use someone else's photo. It's really a question of intent and if you are appropriating what is yours in order to profit from it, and deny the owner their revenue from that intellectual/ creative property. As for the "law", jay walking is against the law too, but you don't see anyone ticketed for it. Also there are some things that are in the public domain. As for "criminals", there are degrees of crimes, misdemeanors, felonies and if someone uses some nobody's photo for a harmless spoof, they are not a "criminal" because they technically violated some huge copyright law.
