Dodgy links

[les]

It has come to my attention that some links posted to other site, in good faith.
May actually link to copyrighted material and not open source or owners giveaways.

In view of recent events
Resulting in sites being closed down,
And in some cases "ISPs being told to stop access.

I think we need to be more careful,
When promoting some of our "Favourite", but "Dodgy" sources .

I do not have a cast iron solution other than to stop all links.

So I think we should all give thoughts of how and what we link to in our threads and posts.

Has any one got any suggestions ?

Do we need a blacklist although this in itself promotes those we wish to discourage.
Could naming but not linking be allowed?
For example
http://www.milovana.com is not allowed
but "Milovana" is!

[janmb]

This whole thing is a bit off track. We cannot proactively prevent links to copyrighted stuff short of disallowing all links. The only sensible approach is the one we already have: Remove case by case, and warn/remove repeat offenders

[Yanker]

Surely there are two types of links in question. One pointing to a website where the image originates (playboy.com for example) and one pointing to a filesharing site.

I would have thought the former was not copyright threatening as the owner has made the publicly accessible in the first place and sharing a link is no different to telling a mate how to access this publicly available image. Of more concern would be the unauthorised use/reproduction, etc of that image in a web tease!

The latter, on the other hand, absolutely could be copyright infringing. Maybe these shoouldcome with a disclaimer from the poster stating they own the copyright to their material before the link is permitted? Of course, this puts more overhead on the admins' who would have to vet posts/links, or redesign the web page to only allow links if the owner also ticks a "copyright ownership" declaration type field (not I'm sure how legally robust that would be).

I hope this isn't the start of this site going the way of OD.com.

[janmb]

Remember that no links infringe by default. And links infringe based on what they link to, not where it is hosted. I for one very much object to the idea of considering something legal or not based on where and how it is hosted and shared. I could easily link to plenty perfectly legal content even on piratebay, some of it being my own property even.

[SexualChoc]

It has come to my attention that some links posted to other site, in good faith.
May actually link to copyrighted material and not open source or owners giveaways.

In view of recent events
Resulting in sites being closed down,
And in some cases "ISPs being told to stop access.

I think we need to be more careful,
When promoting some of our "Favourite", but "Dodgy" sources .

I do not have a cast iron solution other than to stop all links.

So I think we should all give thoughts of how and what we link to in our threads and posts.

Has any one got any suggestions ?

It took me a bit to understand what you were saying Les
because almost all links go to copyright stuff of one kind or anouther

I think your suggestion was (is) to say:

to add another level of protection
instead of actually strait linking a site
instead of linking directly

type: check out: Megaupload.com its a cool site
(er was)

Yes I used megaupload to help understand WHY you would not want to necessarily use a direct link.

[janmb]

It took me a bit to understand what you were saying Les
because almost all links go to copyright stuff of one kind or anouther

Which is perfectly legal, legitimate and ok by milovana rules as well.

Virtually all sites contain copyrighted material, more or less intentionally so - such as artists' own sites, stores, promo sites etc etc.. It's essentially known as advertisement...

But if you meant links that link to sites hosting copyrighted material against their owner's will, now that's another matter. Very few, if any, links from this site links to pirated material, and the few which do gets removed as soon as they are spotted.... What more do we need? This whole discussion is utterly silly.

[seraph0x]

The latter, on the other hand, absolutely could be copyright infringing. Maybe these shoouldcome with a disclaimer from the poster stating they own the copyright to their material before the link is permitted? Of course, this puts more overhead on the admins' who would have to vet posts/links, or redesign the web page to only allow links if the owner also ticks a "copyright ownership" declaration type field (not I'm sure how legally robust that would be).

Yes, this is what we are doing. Creators of webteases have basically two options. They can upload their own images, in which case they have to check a box that they agree to our Terms of Service which explains their rights and warranties, including things like copyright, obscene content, etc.

If you do choose this option, you need to do your own research on what you can and can't use. Anything you upload with permission of the copyright holder obviously does not violate copyright. Beyond that you can claim fair use, which is subject to certain criteria. Since I'm not a lawyer I really cannot advise you on exactly what you can and cannot do, you have to do your own research or find a lawyer. But I can say that an absolute nono is using images from the private member area of sites since it totally goes against the fourth fair use criterion. Please refer to the four criteria for fair use that a court will consider:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Again, I can absolutely not make any recommendation other than: When in doubt, consult a lawyer. There is another alternative, namely:

The second option we offer is that you can use images that we provide (click "Gallery webtease"). If you're unsure about the issues surrounding copyright, I recommend you choose this option. We currently have over 16000 of them and I'm working on adding more in the future. Our new tease system Eos will also have support for gallery images.

Note that if you do choose to upload your own images and we receive a complaint (DMCA notification) that these violate somebody's copyright, we will delete your tease and you will receive a warning. Repeat offenders will lose their account entirely. You can dispute a DMCA notice on fair use or other grounds by filing a counter-notification.

--

I believe les isn't talking about teases though, but rather links on the forum.

To be honest, it seems to be that you should be fine if you use common sense. If you are linking to a download, which is the same exact video that on Clips4sale costs 14.95$, then I think it's fair to assume that that download is illegal. So don't post the link.

If you post infringing links I'll delete them if I see them or get a complaint and you'll get a warning or, if you're a repeat infringer, a ban. I don't see how this is different than any other forum - try posting a link to a pirated copy for a game on IGN.com and see what happens.

As for blacklisting entire sites - I don't see the point. Linking to copyrighted content *on* those sites is already prohibited, so if you link to something legal on that site, why should that be an issue. For example, if you link to an album download on PirateBay that was uploaded by the artists themselves I don't see anything wrong with it.

For example: Please enjoy Nine Inch Nails' album Ghosts I and support them for being awesome.

By putting "PirateBay" on a black list, I couldn't link to that album. That's what was wrong with SOPA. If you lump the good in with the bad and you start indiscriminately hitting people over the head with a big stick, you are weakening the law, not strengthening it.

If you want to talk about sites that are infringing a lot ("Piratebay has been in the news again"), I'll allow it as long as you are not promoting or encouraging infringement. Definitely if somebody asks for a good place to get illegal downloads, for the love of god don't give him one. Instead tell him to respect and support the artists.

If you see links to infringing content, feel free to report them, but please do your homework and make sure the link is actually infringing. On tube sites sometimes content is posted as promotional content by the authors or content is sublicensed and then posted etc. It's a lot of work to investigate these claims, delete the content, notify the poster, potentially notify the copyright holder, etc. So, yes, please notify us, but please be sure.

@mods: You are absolutely authorized to remove obviously infringing links. If you do, please PM the author of the post. You can also add a moderation note to that user's account via the MCP with information about the incident including a link to the post that contained the infringing link. Also please help communicate these rules to members who ask or refer them to this post.

To end on a positive note: I do want you to share good content. There is plenty of free-and-legal as well as commercial-and-worth-buying content out there that you can link to. Use common sense and if something seems dodgy investigate or just err on the side of caution and don't post it.

[janmb]

Thanks for yet another level headed and factual post on this topic seraph.