Are you searching to start drama? There's no way you can consider an immediate and quick deletion of illegal material to be sneaky. You exposed the site to unlikely but potentially legal action, and the mods are sneaky for deleting it without providing you a document as to why? You're not smart enough to figure out reposting copywritten data without express written permission from the author is a bad idea? IMO, the staff should've deleted the thread and then banned you for a month to stew in your own ignorance.
Context is everything here. This is an entirely different subject without the context. There's a very different reaction to deleting a spam thread, and deleting illegal material.
Premium articles are copyrighted, and reproducing them without permission is not only illegal and rude, but it's also against our rules (emphasis mine):
Pay content isn't the only thing covered by copyright. Non-premium articles are also copyrighted, and that while sharing them is easier (since you could use a link), simply copy/pasting a large chunk of one would also be illegal.
Also, while I never saw Tormod's thread, simply posting a section of the article isn't necessarily a violation of copyright. You are allowed to use copyrighted material for certain purposes, and that includes commentary and criticism of the original. While he wouldn't be allowed to, say, post large portions of the article, posting a couple of key paragraphs, and saying, "Well, here's what I disagree with", doesn't break the law. It maybe just be simpler to throw "Don't post any pay-for-access content", but if you're bagging him for "illegal activity", what he did may not have been illegal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Retrodrome!
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
Fair use isn't just a blanket you can throw on appropriating copyrighted material, though.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
• 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.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Bolded the one that I think is most relevant here; these articles get released to the general public eventually anyway, right? I would think releasing articles early picks away at the value of a premium membership.
Also, there's a basic level of respect between communities to consider here.
IANAL, but it seemed to me that it was permissible under the Fair Use Doctrine:
1. The purpose was for criticism and comment and not for any commercial purpose.
2. The amount copied was only a small piece of the overall article and was only the part necessary for the purposes of criticism and comment.
3. It seems unlikely that someone who would otherwise have bought Premium would not do so because of the copied material, given that the copying was limited to one small part and did not include the article's overall conclusions.
Bolded the one that I think is most relevant here; these articles get released to the general public eventually anyway, right? I would think releasing articles early picks away at the value of a premium membership.
You don't just consider the one most beneficial to the copyright holder, though; you consider them all.
And while releasing articles early would do that, he did not release the entire article or anything close to it.
Also, there's a basic level of respect between communities to consider here.
I think this is an argument for allowing it, since respect means we should get a chance to discuss/refute charges made against us.
... these articles get released to the general public eventually anyway, right?
SCG Premium articles are always made free for the general public one month after the publication date, for whatever it's relevant to the discussion at hand.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Fair use isn't just a blanket you can throw on appropriating copyrighted material, though.
Bolded the one that I think is most relevant here; these articles get released to the general public eventually anyway, right? I would think releasing articles early picks away at the value of a premium membership.
I know, people slap "fair use" on anything when they really mean "but I waaaaaaaaaaaaant it!". But copyright is not an absolute stranglehold on the release of a creative work either. Again, I didn't see the original post, but if it was a couple small excepts with commentary from Tormod it probably doesn't break any laws. Fair use largely exists to allow that kind of response - so you can rebut someone while actually having something to rebut.
If the rule is "Don't post SCG Premium stuff" that's fine, but he's getting carded (and suspended, it seems) for "illegal activity". If people are calling something illegal when it may not be, that may need to be looked at.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Retrodrome!
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
IANAL, but it seemed to me that it was permissible under the Fair Use Doctrine:
IAAL, but thats irrelevant to my post. MTGS has made it a policy to avoid the sticky wicket of what is and is not permissible under fair use (a concept that I would point out is currently in debate in legal circles) by erring on the side of caution.
Arm-chair lawyering to show why you think it should be fair use to repost it may be correct, and may be legitimate. However, it's irrelevant.
IAAL, but thats irrelevant to my post. MTGS has made it a policy to avoid the sticky wicket of what is and is not permissible under fair use (a concept that I would point out is currently in debate in legal circles) by erring on the side of caution.
Then why is something like this allowed? Isn't that also the posting of copyrighted material from elsewhere without permission?
IANAL, but it seemed to me that it was permissible under the Fair Use Doctrine:
1. The purpose was for criticism and comment and not for any commercial purpose.
2. The amount copied was only a small piece of the overall article and was only the part necessary for the purposes of criticism and comment.
3. It seems unlikely that someone who would otherwise have bought Premium would not do so because of the copied material, given that the copying was limited to one small part and did not include the article's overall conclusions.
This is probably the correct analysis. (Lawyer.)
But I think there's some sense to the idea that staff members shouldn't be put in charge of eyeballing what looks like a fair-use copy paste, and what's beyond the pale. A too-strict policy makes sense, given the possible repercussions.
Then why is something like this allowed? Isn't that also the posting of copyrighted material from elsewhere without permission?
The difference being, that no one payed to receive the information in the link you posted. It IS copyrighted material, but it is information that was released publicly. There is no standing order from Wizards saying 'don't rehost this information'.
I'm going to chime in briefly to state my personal opinion - while the MTGS staff is certainly justified in deleting the thread to avoid appearances of impropriety and/or copyright infringement (I think the lawyers around here would state that it's far better to not risk a lawsuit even if you're fairly confident you can win.), I feel that a three month suspension of the poster in question is overly harsh, and that leniency given the circumstances should be considered.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former Level 2 Judge (Retired / Renounced)
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Then why is something like this allowed? Isn't that also the posting of copyrighted material from elsewhere without permission?
Material can be copyrighted, and also allowed to be distributed in whole if the copyright user allows it. Copyright material can also be considered public domain as well, and distributable as such as long as it is not for profit. As I stated, context is everything in this discussion.
Within the context of the offender, and from what has been said it seemed like a lot more than a few small excerpts for discussion. As well, given there was 1 spoiler block dedicated to the content, I would say it was a large part of the article and not simply a few quotations and talking points. I can't say for certain, only the OP and anyone who actually commented and saw it before it came down can say that. When considering "fair-use", you also have to consider if it conveys the central idea inside of the content. If it conveys the central idea or heart of the content, fair-use does not apply.
[EDIT] The above was vague. To give an appropriate example: If we say that Einstein's Theory of Relativity(in whole, not simply the equation) was under copyright and allowed no reproduction in part or whole. Simply quoting "E=MC^2" + an explanation would be in violation due to capturing the central point of the content.
With regard to his suspension, if you potentially endanger the site in a way that could open them to legal trouble, I would say you deserve a ban. You didn't act like an educated, capable, intelligent adult and you showed reckless abandon towards the community by acting in such an immature manner. He's also had 3 other infractions according to the suspended thread, so this wasn't his first time screwing up.
I'm going to chime in briefly to state my personal opinion - while the MTGS staff is certainly justified in deleting the thread to avoid appearances of impropriety and/or copyright infringement (I think the lawyers around here would state that it's far better to not risk a lawsuit even if you're fairly confident you can win.), I feel that a three month suspension of the poster in question is overly harsh, and that leniency given the circumstances should be considered.
I think the user's three prior suspensions bore more weight in his fourth's length than his transgression.
But I think there's some sense to the idea that staff members shouldn't be put in charge of eyeballing what looks like a fair-use copy paste, and what's beyond the pale. A too-strict policy makes sense, given the possible repercussions.
What would the repercussions be? Doesn't MTGS have safe harbor protection under the DMCA?
And while I understand your point with regards to taking down the material, it seems a bit harsh to issue a suspension for something that is probably legal.
The difference being, that no one payed to receive the information in the link you posted. It IS copyrighted material, but it is information that was released publicly. There is no standing order from Wizards saying 'don't rehost this information'.
The reason that the payment issue matters is how it relates to the fourth factor of the Fair Use Doctrine. So if that's the reason, the staff is making a Fair Use judgment in that case.
What would the repercussions be? Doesn't MTGS have safe harbor protection under the DMCA?
They may, but in accordance with the DMCA safe harbor, they must promptly remove or block access to that material. Which is exactly what they did. Glad you agree the staff made the correct decision.
Material can be copyrighted, and also allowed to be distributed in whole if the copyright user allows it. Copyright material can also be considered public domain as well, and distributable as such as long as it is not for profit. As I stated, context is everything in this discussion.
Sure....but AFAIK Wizards didn't give permission to repost that Arcana. If it's permissible, it's because of Fair Use.
Within the context of the offender, and from what has been said it seemed like a lot more than a few small excerpts for discussion. As well, given there was 1 spoiler block dedicated to the content, I would say it was a large part of the article and not simply a few quotations and talking points. I can't say for certain, only the OP and anyone who actually commented and saw it before it came down can say that. When considering "fair-use", you also have to consider if it conveys the central idea inside of the content. If it conveys the central idea or heart of the content, fair-use does not apply.
I did see it before it was taken down. It was just the few sentences about MTGS. It did not convey the central idea of the content (the article isn't primarily about MTGS). It was not a large part of the article.
With regard to his suspension, if you potentially endanger the site in a way that could open them to legal trouble, I would say you deserve a ban. You didn't act like an educated, capable, intelligent adult and you showed reckless abandon towards the community by acting in such an immature manner. He's also had 3 other infractions according to the suspended thread, so this wasn't his first time screwing up.
The standard has got to be higher than that, though, or we'd be banning everyone who posts an unofficial spoiler in the Rumor Mill.
They may, but in accordance with the DMCA safe harbor, they must promptly remove or block access to that material. Which is exactly what they did. Glad you agree the staff made the correct decision.
They must remove or block access — upon receipt of a proper takedown notice from the copyright holder. AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) this didn't happen.
They may, but in accordance with the DMCA safe harbor, they must promptly remove or block access to that material. Which is exactly what they did. Glad you agree the staff made the correct decision.
They must remove or block access — upon receipt of a proper takedown notice from the copyright holder. AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) this didn't happen.
I don't practice copyright and haven't read the requirements for DMCA notice in a long while, but let's imagine that SCG sends the takedown notice to the owner, Hannes. He ignores it, because, well, Hannes. Havoc theoretically ensues.
The Mods did the right thing in removing potentially lawsuit ensuing material. They also did the right thing in handing out a suspension for repeated rules violations.
They did the wrong thing in not immediately notifying the user as to why his thread was deleted. In fact (now I didnt see the thread so I cannot be certain) they may have done the wrong thing in deleting the thread instead of just redacting the copyrighted material from the OP as done in this thread.
This is an example of a nice live and learn situation for all involved.
I don't practice copyright and haven't read the requirements for DMCA notice in a long while, but let's imagine that SCG sends the takedown notice to the owner, Hannes. He ignores it, because, well, Hannes. Havoc theoretically ensues.
If legal notices aren't being read/passed along to the proper people that's a far bigger problem on its own merits and really should be addressed.
The Mods did the right thing in removing potentially lawsuit ensuing material. They also did the right thing in handing out a suspension for repeated rules violations.
They did the wrong thing in not immediately notifying the user as to why his thread was deleted. In fact (now I didnt see the thread so I cannot be certain) they may have done the wrong thing in deleting the thread instead of just redacting the copyrighted material from the OP as done in this thread.
This is an example of a nice live and learn situation for all involved.
The time between removal and notifying him was not that long - less than an hour. Since we knew that it would lead to his 4th suspension we opted NOT to rush into the situation. I think that deleting the thread with a quick PM letting him know that the staff are talking about it ~might~ have been a better course of action, but until the notification was given there were questions that we had to talk about. Also, deleting the thread was probably not 100% necessary, but the entire conversation hinged on the material that was to be deleted.
If legal notices aren't being read/passed along to the proper people that's a far bigger problem on its own merits and really should be addressed.
I think you may be correct about being required to remove content after you have received a communication from the copyright holder. Even in this case, it's better to err on the side of caution. They aren't negatively impacting the community by removing potentially illegal or questionable content ahead of a notification. Fortunately, given the context the impending slippery slope doesn't apply here and would only result in a ludicrous claim.
Whether or not they are being answered is entirely tangential and is of no import regarding the OP.
The time between removal and notifying him was not that long - less than an hour. Since we knew that it would lead to his 4th suspension we opted NOT to rush into the situation. I think that deleting the thread with a quick PM letting him know that the staff are talking about it ~might~ have been a better course of action, but until the notification was given there were questions that we had to talk about. Also, deleting the thread was probably not 100% necessary, but the entire conversation hinged on the material that was to be deleted.
Suggestion for future occasions: besides what you already mentioned (quick PM), perhaps instead of deleting the thread you could have moved it to [secret location only mods have access to] except this time you leave a redirect link that says the thread was moved. Then PM says to the OP: "Your thread is under review for the following reasons, we'll let you know, etc. etc."
Context is everything here. This is an entirely different subject without the context. There's a very different reaction to deleting a spam thread, and deleting illegal material.
Pay content isn't the only thing covered by copyright. Non-premium articles are also copyrighted, and that while sharing them is easier (since you could use a link), simply copy/pasting a large chunk of one would also be illegal.
Also, while I never saw Tormod's thread, simply posting a section of the article isn't necessarily a violation of copyright. You are allowed to use copyrighted material for certain purposes, and that includes commentary and criticism of the original. While he wouldn't be allowed to, say, post large portions of the article, posting a couple of key paragraphs, and saying, "Well, here's what I disagree with", doesn't break the law. It maybe just be simpler to throw "Don't post any pay-for-access content", but if you're bagging him for "illegal activity", what he did may not have been illegal.
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
Bolded the one that I think is most relevant here; these articles get released to the general public eventually anyway, right? I would think releasing articles early picks away at the value of a premium membership.
Also, there's a basic level of respect between communities to consider here.
1. The purpose was for criticism and comment and not for any commercial purpose.
2. The amount copied was only a small piece of the overall article and was only the part necessary for the purposes of criticism and comment.
3. It seems unlikely that someone who would otherwise have bought Premium would not do so because of the copied material, given that the copying was limited to one small part and did not include the article's overall conclusions.
You don't just consider the one most beneficial to the copyright holder, though; you consider them all.
And while releasing articles early would do that, he did not release the entire article or anything close to it.
I think this is an argument for allowing it, since respect means we should get a chance to discuss/refute charges made against us.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
SCG Premium articles are always made free for the general public one month after the publication date, for whatever it's relevant to the discussion at hand.
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
I know, people slap "fair use" on anything when they really mean "but I waaaaaaaaaaaaant it!". But copyright is not an absolute stranglehold on the release of a creative work either. Again, I didn't see the original post, but if it was a couple small excepts with commentary from Tormod it probably doesn't break any laws. Fair use largely exists to allow that kind of response - so you can rebut someone while actually having something to rebut.
If the rule is "Don't post SCG Premium stuff" that's fine, but he's getting carded (and suspended, it seems) for "illegal activity". If people are calling something illegal when it may not be, that may need to be looked at.
Hoi, hoi, u embleer hrair
M'saion ulé hraka vair.
IAAL, but thats irrelevant to my post. MTGS has made it a policy to avoid the sticky wicket of what is and is not permissible under fair use (a concept that I would point out is currently in debate in legal circles) by erring on the side of caution.
Arm-chair lawyering to show why you think it should be fair use to repost it may be correct, and may be legitimate. However, it's irrelevant.
Then why is something like this allowed? Isn't that also the posting of copyrighted material from elsewhere without permission?
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
This is probably the correct analysis. (Lawyer.)
But I think there's some sense to the idea that staff members shouldn't be put in charge of eyeballing what looks like a fair-use copy paste, and what's beyond the pale. A too-strict policy makes sense, given the possible repercussions.
The difference being, that no one payed to receive the information in the link you posted. It IS copyrighted material, but it is information that was released publicly. There is no standing order from Wizards saying 'don't rehost this information'.
Went to a new shop from a friend's recommendation, DQ'ed for willful violation of CR 100.6b.
Have played duals? I have PucaPoints for them!
(Credit to DarkNightCavalier)
$tandard: Too poor.
Modern:
- GW Birthing Pod(?)
Legacy:
- UWR Delver
Material can be copyrighted, and also allowed to be distributed in whole if the copyright user allows it. Copyright material can also be considered public domain as well, and distributable as such as long as it is not for profit. As I stated, context is everything in this discussion.
Within the context of the offender, and from what has been said it seemed like a lot more than a few small excerpts for discussion. As well, given there was 1 spoiler block dedicated to the content, I would say it was a large part of the article and not simply a few quotations and talking points. I can't say for certain, only the OP and anyone who actually commented and saw it before it came down can say that. When considering "fair-use", you also have to consider if it conveys the central idea inside of the content. If it conveys the central idea or heart of the content, fair-use does not apply.
[EDIT] The above was vague. To give an appropriate example: If we say that Einstein's Theory of Relativity(in whole, not simply the equation) was under copyright and allowed no reproduction in part or whole. Simply quoting "E=MC^2" + an explanation would be in violation due to capturing the central point of the content.
With regard to his suspension, if you potentially endanger the site in a way that could open them to legal trouble, I would say you deserve a ban. You didn't act like an educated, capable, intelligent adult and you showed reckless abandon towards the community by acting in such an immature manner. He's also had 3 other infractions according to the suspended thread, so this wasn't his first time screwing up.
I think the user's three prior suspensions bore more weight in his fourth's length than his transgression.
Archatmos
Excellion
Fracture: Israfiel (WBR), Wujal (URG), Valedon (GUB), Amduat (BGW), Paladris (RWU)
Collision (Set Two of the Fracture Block)
Quest for the Forsaken (Set Two of the Excellion Block)
Katingal: Plane of Chains
What would the repercussions be? Doesn't MTGS have safe harbor protection under the DMCA?
And while I understand your point with regards to taking down the material, it seems a bit harsh to issue a suspension for something that is probably legal.
The reason that the payment issue matters is how it relates to the fourth factor of the Fair Use Doctrine. So if that's the reason, the staff is making a Fair Use judgment in that case.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
They may, but in accordance with the DMCA safe harbor, they must promptly remove or block access to that material. Which is exactly what they did. Glad you agree the staff made the correct decision.
Sure....but AFAIK Wizards didn't give permission to repost that Arcana. If it's permissible, it's because of Fair Use.
I did see it before it was taken down. It was just the few sentences about MTGS. It did not convey the central idea of the content (the article isn't primarily about MTGS). It was not a large part of the article.
The standard has got to be higher than that, though, or we'd be banning everyone who posts an unofficial spoiler in the Rumor Mill.
They must remove or block access — upon receipt of a proper takedown notice from the copyright holder. AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) this didn't happen.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
I don't practice copyright and haven't read the requirements for DMCA notice in a long while, but let's imagine that SCG sends the takedown notice to the owner, Hannes. He ignores it, because, well, Hannes. Havoc theoretically ensues.
They did the wrong thing in not immediately notifying the user as to why his thread was deleted. In fact (now I didnt see the thread so I cannot be certain) they may have done the wrong thing in deleting the thread instead of just redacting the copyrighted material from the OP as done in this thread.
This is an example of a nice live and learn situation for all involved.
The Family
If legal notices aren't being read/passed along to the proper people that's a far bigger problem on its own merits and really should be addressed.
Practice for Khans of Tarkir Limited:
Draft: (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5)
The time between removal and notifying him was not that long - less than an hour. Since we knew that it would lead to his 4th suspension we opted NOT to rush into the situation. I think that deleting the thread with a quick PM letting him know that the staff are talking about it ~might~ have been a better course of action, but until the notification was given there were questions that we had to talk about. Also, deleting the thread was probably not 100% necessary, but the entire conversation hinged on the material that was to be deleted.
WUBRGPauper Battle BoxWUBRG ... and why I am not a fan of Wayne Reynolds' Illustrations.
I think you may be correct about being required to remove content after you have received a communication from the copyright holder. Even in this case, it's better to err on the side of caution. They aren't negatively impacting the community by removing potentially illegal or questionable content ahead of a notification. Fortunately, given the context the impending slippery slope doesn't apply here and would only result in a ludicrous claim.
Whether or not they are being answered is entirely tangential and is of no import regarding the OP.
Suggestion for future occasions: besides what you already mentioned (quick PM), perhaps instead of deleting the thread you could have moved it to [secret location only mods have access to] except this time you leave a redirect link that says the thread was moved. Then PM says to the OP: "Your thread is under review for the following reasons, we'll let you know, etc. etc."
Q0.02
My YouTube Channel