UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => news => Topic started by: Offwidth on May 18, 2019, 09:17:54 am
-
June 1st will be a vary sad day for climbing related discussion on the internet.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/3198199/SuperTopo-Forum-to-shut-down-June-1-2019
-
There are climbing related discussions on that forum as well? I didn't know!
-
A recent example
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/3195076/RIP-Edwin-Drummond
-
I will sorely miss the supertopo forum. A major loss in my book. One of the best out there.
A fantastic source of information, opinions and memories.
-
Interesting even if you don't have a public forum.
Also, from the always interesting, always abominable Neal Stephenson
(https://i.imgur.com/KYul3wu.png)
(Excerpt from Fall; or, Dodge in Hell)
-
The most recent Runout podcast has an interesting interview with Chris Macnamara, the owner of Supertopo, on the reasons why he had to close the forum and the evolution of social media generally. Worth a listen (especially if you own a web forum :wave: Shark )
https://runoutpodcast.com/index.php/2019/06/05/runout-24-so-long-supertaco/
So:
A) they don't make any money
B) if you allow users to upload content (images) you may be subject to copyright lawsuits
C) people won't police themselves
I didn't know that Mountain Project was REI owned.
-
So:
A) they don't make any money
B) if you allow users to upload content (images) you may be subject to copyright lawsuits
C) people won't police themselves
I didn't know that Mountain Project was REI owned.
I listened to it last night and that was my take away messages too.
I did wonder how hard they tried to make money to make the evident hassles worthwhile and whether they protected themselves with a limited liability company (hat tip to habrich who was well ahead of the curve).
I wonder whether the potential copyright risks are the reasons that UKC don't offer image and video upload like we do or whether it is just the on issue of cost of extra data storage. :-\
Sounds like the forum discussions got out of control and UKB is evidence that a forum can police itself with negligible intervention by moderators. ;D
-
Isn’t the image/video hosting aspect dealt with as these have to be via a third party source then embedded in Ukb?
-
Isn’t the image/video hosting aspect dealt with as these have to be via a third party source then embedded in Ukb?
I'm unsure and US law may differ on this, I'd certainly like to know but I suspect it falls into the murky area of to what extent, if any, a forum owner is a publisher or not and whether posters are wholly or partially responsible for the content they publish. I'd certainly remove images when requested on the grounds it breached copyright. Certainly the third party would be liable for copyright infringement but whether a forum owner (in UKB's case that's Outdoor Forums Limited) or the user is also legally liable for any such infringement I've no idea. To date I've only thought about it in terms of defamation situations.
-
Isn’t the image/video hosting aspect dealt with as these have to be via a third party source then embedded in Ukb?
I'm unsure and US law may differ on this, I'd certainly like to know but I suspect it falls into the murky area of to what extent, if any, a forum owner is a publisher or not and whether posters are wholly or partially responsible for the content they publish. I'd certainly remove images when requested on the grounds it breached copyright. Certainly the third party would be liable for copyright infringement but whether a forum owner (in UKB's case that's Outdoor Forums Limited) or the user is also legally liable for any such infringement I've no idea. To date I've only thought about it in terms of defamation situations.
Im not a lawyer but...you are liable even if you aren't directly hosting the copyrighted content yourself. For example, platforms like thepiratebay.org don't actually host any copyrighted content, they're essentially just big collections of links to content. They've lost a few court cases in the UK and as such UK ISPs are obliged to block access.
Having said that I believe the 'intent' matters. The Pirate Bay was designed for helping to illegally distribute copyrighted content, whereas something like google search will come up with links to plenty of pirated content if you search for the right things, but they have a process for reporting and removing the content (i.e. reasonable steps to avoid piracy) and it's obviously hugely useful for finding things other than pirated content.
I think the US is pretty similar.
-
Thanks for insights Remus
-
I am curious as to whether anyone still thinks UKB should have retained its DFBWGC thread?
Me too..
-
I am curious as to whether anyone still thinks UKB should have retained its DFBWGC thread?
Me too..
Really?
-
"Really" as in am I really curious (no) or "really" as in it's not acceptable to make a pun?
-
I would have thought it fairly plain that DFBWGC is not really missed by anyone (oh, I see you were joking).
It was cited as a reason for the board not having many female posters. DFBWGC has been gone for a while now and still very little female presence here. Is it just because the place is so overwhelmingly blokey that no ladies are bothered about joining?
-
The first Shark, but I also missed the pun. I can't believe anyone really thinks its worth reopening this question. Maybe Habrich was just stirring?
-
The first Shark, but I also missed the pun.
Phew! I thought you were going to give me a grilling
-
The first Shark, but I also missed the pun.
Phew! I thought you were going to give me a grilling
Good riddance. I’m so much happier looking at pictures of jaded old men climbing rocks. Way better.
-
IIRC you were kindly going to stand in for me to represent UKB at a social media debate at the women's climbing symposium which almost certainly would have homed in on DFBWGC. The debate was cancelled.
Edit - found the thread: https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,18760.msg333711.html#msg333711
-
IIRC you were kindly going to stand in for me to represent UKB at a social media debate at the women's climbing symposium which almost certainly would have homed in on DFBWGC. The debate was cancelled.
Edit - found the thread: https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,18760.msg333711.html#msg333711
I do remember.
-
Isn’t the image/video hosting aspect dealt with as these have to be via a third party source then embedded in Ukb?
I'm unsure and US law may differ on this, I'd certainly like to know but I suspect it falls into the murky area of to what extent, if any, a forum owner is a publisher or not and whether posters are wholly or partially responsible for the content they publish. I'd certainly remove images when requested on the grounds it breached copyright. Certainly the third party would be liable for copyright infringement but whether a forum owner (in UKB's case that's Outdoor Forums Limited) or the user is also legally liable for any such infringement I've no idea. To date I've only thought about it in terms of defamation situations.
Look up Getty Images Extortion.
I was stung by this for embedding an image of planetary orbits on a blog page, just as a bit of filler to illustrate my ramblings. I got an email demanding payment of £640 for copyright infringement, which would be reduced to £240 if I paid promptly, and escalated to legal proceedings if I didn't pay. After researching various options (ignore, contest or settle), I negotiated down to nearer £100, which seemed a better option than becoming entrenched in stressful legal wranglings.
From what I understand, various companies have computers trawling the internet for copyrighted images. Offering to take down the offending image doesn't help - the demand for payment is based on historical use, and these companies make their money from this activity.
I don't know whether they would target forums. I suspect I was targeted because I looked like a small business (blog attached to guidebook website).
-
Quite a few years ago. I had a similar issue with Getty Images. It was my own fault we were setting up a website for our business and used some images off google. At the time I had no idea about copyright etc
Anyway I got one of those emails and like yourself did a bit of research. Getty images clearly send out thousands of these emails to small businesses and blog owners.
In the end I ignored them with the proviso that if contacted again I would ask for proof of ownership of copyright. After two emails I never heard from them again.
Have never quite worked out whether it was a scam or if they send so many out that it isn’t worth fighting or following up because so many people pay?
Dave