Copyright

What concerns me recently regarding copyright and theft of intellectual property is the rise and growing field of legal extortion mills under the guise of copyright protection. It's no longer a C&D request as a reasonable effort to stop infringement, it's now an automatically generated demand letter threatening legal action that can be averted for a price. This is no longer about copyright protection, it's been perverted into a revenue generator. They're no longer targeting the true infringers that are making a profit off the work of others, they're now concentrating on the little guy such as bloggers or independent websites on the assumption that you'd rather pay them off rather then calling their bluff and face the possiblity of expensive litigation and possible award of damages.

I've been pointing out the problem with allowing copyrighted material to be posted here without permission for a few years. Apparently it doesn't bother those who post it here, or those who are likely to end up on the receiving end of legal troubles for permitting it.

DawnT

What concerns me recently regarding copyright and theft of intellectual property is the rise and growing field of legal extortion mills under the guise of copyright protection.

What SHOULD bother you is the actual infringement of the copyright and the theft of someone's property, intellectual or otherwise.  The problem with someone "appropriating" someone else's work for their own use is that it causes creative people to share less of their work.  Why would a talented photographer upload their pictures to flickr (for example, not really calling them out specifically) when there is an increased likelihood that the exposure generated on flickr could cause their property to be stolen - or, simply used by someone like the dimwit in the above-mentioned article, who really believes that everything on the Internet is public domain?
 

DawnT
 It's no longer a C&D request as a reasonable effort to stop infringement, it's now an automatically generated demand letter threatening legal action that can be averted for a price.

If by "averted for a price," you mean that the person committing the copyright infringement is asked to pay a reasonable sum for the property that they allocated for themselves...then yes, this is what is happening.  If your home or car was broken into (even if you left it unlocked) and someone came in and helped themselves to your stuff.  If apprehended, shouldn't the criminal pay?  If said criminal only had to give you your stuff back, what deterrent would there be for the same criminal to try to break into someone else's house - in the hopes that they weren't caught the next time?  Perhaps they have even learned some lessons about how to better break into someone's home to reduce the odds of them being caught the next time?
 
Sorry, but if you steal someone's creative work and re-post (or in whatever way re-package) as your own, you should be punished, if caught - and made to pay a fair sum for the work involved.
 

DawnT
 This is no longer about copyright protection, it's been perverted into a revenue generator.

Call it what you like, but after reading the response from the magazine in the referenced article, do you really feel like the author of the article was out of line asking for a donation (or, rightfully, she could have asked to be paid)?  What justification could there possibly be for that magazine not paying to use someone else's material?

DawnT:
Cease and desist letters often come with invoices for use of the work up to that point.
 
The function of copyright is to allow the creators of a work to reap the fruits of their labor. So, the idea that copyright generates income is not perverted, it's actually the function of protecting one's copyright.
 
The only person(s) who would find this a perversion of copyright is the copyright infringer and those who feel they don't have to pay to use another person's work.
 
Of course there are firms who help copyright owners find infringements and get paid for the infraction. And the firm gets their cut for doing the legwork. How can this be extortion when they are working towards protecting the rights of the copyright owner?
 
With your logic, I guess when someone gets a speeding ticket, it's extortion to pay a fine.
 
 

So, I take it Scorereader is suggesting that this site be shut down so that the owners of Roadfood.com don't get sued because some drunk, in the middle of the night, uploaded a copyrighted story to this message board.

This thread has gotten way too

serious. And for that, I insert this:

 

 

Thank you.

i95

This thread has gotten way too

serious. And for that, I insert this:

 

 

Thank you.

 
Please send us written and irrefutable evidence that you have authorization to post this cute little dancing kitty cat 

It's not dancing. It's butt scooting and I think that is exempt from copyright.

Tony Bad


Please send us written and irrefutable evidence that you have authorization to post this cute little dancing kitty cat 

I'm sorry but such work was provided to me by a crypto-anarchist and I can not comply with your request.

i95

Tony Bad


Please send us written and irrefutable evidence that you have authorization to post this cute little dancing kitty cat 

I'm sorry but such work was provided to me by a crypto-anarchist and I can not comply with your request.

 
Crypto-anarchist? I think we are going to have to watch you a bit more carefully.

David_NYC


So, I take it Scorereader is suggesting that this site be shut down so that the owners of Roadfood.com don't get sued because some drunk, in the middle of the night, uploaded a copyrighted story to this message board.

 
 
So, I take it you haven't been reading the thread and my suggestions. Typical.
 
 
 

I gave up on the potential problems here as a result of people posting copyrighted material a while ago. It appears not to matter to those who would end up paying for it.

Food magazine posts apology over use of unauthorized material

What an easy way out.  I don't buy it.

mar52


What an easy way out.  I don't buy it.

That's good. One should never buy stolen property or phoney excuses.

right, hackers did it. wink-wink, nudge nudge.
 
well done mar52, for seeing through the bs.
 

 
In paragraph 5, they own up to their misdeed. 
 
The hacking seems to me to refer to their Facebook page.
 
I'm not defending the publication ... I'm sure they knew better, but somehow got their a## in a sling ... I don't see them trying to skate through this by blaming hackers for the original issue.
 
 

they're blaming the response on hackers.

Scorereader

David_NYC


So, I take it Scorereader is suggesting that this site be shut down so that the owners of Roadfood.com don't get sued because some drunk, in the middle of the night, uploaded a copyrighted story to this message board.

So, I take it you haven't been reading the thread and my suggestions. Typical.

I have read this entire article and made a few contributions to it over the last few months. I know you suggested that the management of Roadfood.com designate an agent to act on complaints of copyright infringement. What set me off was the dismissal of DawnT's observation that skells are now sending people " automatically generated demand letter threatening legal action that can be averted for a price."
 
A while back, the moderators suggested using the "Report Abuse"
button to report threads that are getting out of line. Maybe they should include a suggestion to also reports posts of copyrighted material.
Sorry, but trademark and copyright bullies are one of my pet peeves. Before the Internet, it was a lot more difficult to publish something and the people doing publishing probably learned about copyright in the process. Now anyone can publish, and if someone screws up there seems to be people who unfairly take advantage of them. How? In the form of outrageously high demands for payments for publishing copyrighted material.

I too am very conscious about copyright infringement.  For instance, I would like to know who took this photo so I can give them their proper recognition.
 
   

JOE,  Send your check to the Mayor's Office !

mayor al


JOE,  Send your check to the Mayor's Office !

 
I don't know what to send.  I keep thinking...PRICELESS!!!!

You guessed right again !

Davydd


It's not dancing. It's butt scooting and I think that is exempt from copyright.

Ew. That's gonna leave a mark on the rug.

DavidNYC - so, because it's easier to post or publish material, people should have the freedom to be less careful? Because, that's what it is. when it was more "difficult" as you point out to publish, people were more careful because the process of publishing required more indepth study. Now that any "Joe" can "publish," the same care and investigation on the copyright status of a work is not taken. 
 
You say you have a problem with "copyright bullies," well, I have a problem with people thinking they can take and use without consequence. Sorry, there's a consequence when one steals. Even when one steals "on accident." "oops, my bad" doesn't cover it.
 
And, I'm not sure what you mean by "bullying." The thought that someone is making "outrageously high demands for payments for publishing copyrighted material" is kind of, bull! I'm sorry, it is. Under the law, they can ask for either actual damages, which they have to show cause, or statuatory damages, which are outlined in the law.  And statuatory damages can only be sought if the copyright owner followed the legal procedures to qualify for them.
 
Now, can an attorney or firm send a legally threatening letter asking for more than they should get? Sure. They can. And if the threatened person doesn't know the law, which they probably don't since they infringed someone's copyright, well, IMO, their ignorance has reaped its just reward.
 
But, all of this is avoidable. If one doesn't break the law, one won't have to be subject to such invoices.
 
Since publishing is easier now and things get "out there" so much quicker and so much more wide-spread, people should be MORE careful, not less.
 
And, fyi, the Report Abuse option is not a valid use for roadfood.com to protect itself at this point - even if the mods started using it a takedown/reporting (c) issues. The DMCA requirements are clear as to what needs to be done. Morally would be good, as it would help curb pirating, but doesn't protect roadfood.com, which, imo, should be their primary concern.
 

From my experience if a user uploads a copyright file Roadfood.com is not legally liable or required to police it. But if notified by the copyright holder of the violation they should take prudent action. Then if they don't, they are then subject to whatever follows legally.
 
I don't see a lot posted on Roadfood.com that appears to be a copyright violation. Most all photos seem to be user taken and volunteered. There have been some suspect posters in the past and they all seem to have come and gone in a short time. Maybe Roadfood.com had something to do with that. That's their business and not ours. I do know Roadfood.com has used photos posted here in other publications. Michael Stern took the proper steps to get my permission and release for a photo I had taken used in the Pizza magazine just published.
 
Many of my photos have gone viral. Even my pork tenderloin tutorial recipe has gone viral and been published in newspaper food sections numerous times. I do track them to the best of my ability and find most times I had been duly credited and been contacted. However, I have found some where the poster had claimed credit. Public call out and embarrassment is my tool of choice. I never post the original digital image online. It is always a medium to low JPEG translation in low resolution. They never look as good as what I have on my computer and at least I can prove I have the original if it ever came to that.

Davydd:
From my experience if a user uploads a copyright file Roadfood.com is not legally liable or required to police it.
 
Well, that's not true. All content on roadfood.com is the responsiblility of roadfood.com
 
The takedown notification as outlined in DMCA can alleviate the responsibility of user imputted data IF the web-provider follows the DMCA statute. Right now, roadfood.com is not DMCA compliant, so it can't rely on DMCA if a copyright owner causes havoc.
 
BTW - it would cost roadfood.com $105 and the time to fill out a piece of paper to become compliant and have the protections DMCA affords.
 
As per:  don't see a lot posted on Roadfood.com that appears to be a copyright violation. Um, pics, recipes and articles are reprinted here all the time. It's gotten better as people realize using links is the best option, but it still happens a lot.