MyBB Community Forums

(2017-03-11, 05:40 AM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]

Azah Wrote:Wordpress has a back-link, although you can remove it, if you really wanted to. But it does not say powered by.

I'm sorry; how does "Proudly powered by WordPress" not say Powered By?

That's a good point :/

(2017-03-11, 03:44 PM)Tom K. Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding the backlink point, at this point I'd say the backlink is irrelevant for Google search rankings. As stated, Google doesn't really value these links any more, and we have a lot of natural content. The purpose of these links is to advertise to those who may want to run their own forum.

I'm not as concerned about the backlink policy as I am about other policies you guys have made.

---

Turns out I can't even start a thread:

So staff closing my threads won't be an issue :/

I think the link back is a good thing. I'm getting the software for free so the least I can do is have a link on my website as a thank you, though I have changed the link to "Software by MyBB"

The "Denied Support" label can look very messy and to be honest it does look a bit aggressive.



I understand the reasons for the label, but to be fair it is a bit hard on those that contribute a lot to MyBB

I think a less aggressive label and maybe one that gives the reason why they are denied support would be a fairer way to go. Maybe in the postbit a small colour coded image or something, but at least make it look tidy.

How is this so hard? I mean, even change it to "has been denied official support"

(sorry, Lunorian, but I happened to be looking at your post)

(2017-03-12, 08:33 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]How is this so hard? I mean, even change it to "has been denied official support"

(sorry, Lunorian, but I happened to be looking at your post)

Don't worry. Also they block me from creating threads in the support section. I think only denying support to sites that don't include the back link would be better than blocking sites with content they disagree with. For now though the issue remains and policy changes would create a better community for everyone.

(2017-03-12, 10:52 PM)Lunorian Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 08:33 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]How is this so hard? I mean, even change it to "has been denied official support"

(sorry, Lunorian, but I happened to be looking at your post)

Don't worry. Also they block me from creating threads in the support section. I think only denying support to sites that don't include the back link would be better than blocking sites with content they disagree with. For now though the issue remains and policy changes would create a better community for everyone.

I disagree. We shouldn't provide support to illegal content producing sites. This is a decision those admins have made - and a decision within the SEP that I concur with 100%.

(2017-03-12, 11:55 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 10:52 PM)Lunorian Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 08:33 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]How is this so hard? I mean, even change it to "has been denied official support"

(sorry, Lunorian, but I happened to be looking at your post)

Don't worry. Also they block me from creating threads in the support section. I think only denying support to sites that don't include the back link would be better than blocking sites with content they disagree with. For now though the issue remains and policy changes would create a better community for everyone.

I disagree. We shouldn't provide support to illegal content producing sites. This is a decision those admins have made - and a decision within the SEP that I concur with 100%.

It depends on jurisdiction of whether content is illegal. In my country linking to copyrighted content is 100% legal.

(2017-03-13, 12:48 AM)Lunorian Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 11:55 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 10:52 PM)Lunorian Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 08:33 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]How is this so hard? I mean, even change it to "has been denied official support"

(sorry, Lunorian, but I happened to be looking at your post)

Don't worry. Also they block me from creating threads in the support section. I think only denying support to sites that don't include the back link would be better than blocking sites with content they disagree with. For now though the issue remains and policy changes would create a better community for everyone.

I disagree. We shouldn't provide support to illegal content producing sites. This is a decision those admins have made - and a decision within the SEP that I concur with 100%.

It depends on jurisdiction of whether content is illegal. In my country linking to copyrighted content is 100% legal.

In the US and/or Australia (ironically, where I live); it isn't legal - hence my comments.

(2017-03-13, 01:51 AM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-13, 12:48 AM)Lunorian Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 11:55 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 10:52 PM)Lunorian Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 08:33 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]How is this so hard? I mean, even change it to "has been denied official support"

(sorry, Lunorian, but I happened to be looking at your post)

Don't worry. Also they block me from creating threads in the support section. I think only denying support to sites that don't include the back link would be better than blocking sites with content they disagree with. For now though the issue remains and policy changes would create a better community for everyone.

I disagree. We shouldn't provide support to illegal content producing sites. This is a decision those admins have made - and a decision within the SEP that I concur with 100%.

It depends on jurisdiction of whether content is illegal. In my country linking to copyrighted content is 100% legal.

In the US and/or Australia (ironically, where I live); it isn't legal - hence my comments.

It's not illegal to link to copyright-ed content in the United States yet. If so sites such as Reddit would be liable everytime someone posted a link to a site hosting content that potentially violated copyright law. My legal advisors and copyright law experts whom I've spoken with agree with me. I can't comment on Australia as I'm not familiar with their laws.

---

Quote:Washington Post v. Total News

In February 1997 the Washington Post, CNN, the Los Angeles Times, Dow Jones (Wall Street Journal), and Reuters sued Total News Inc. for framing their news stories on the Total News Webpage. The complaint was filed in New York federal district court. The case was settled in June 1997, on the basis that linking without framing would be used in the future.[21]
Ticketmaster v. Microsoft

In April 1997 Ticketmaster Corp. sued Microsoft Corp. in Los Angeles federal district court for deep linking.[22] Ticketmaster objected to Microsoft's bypassing the home and intermediate pages on Ticketmaster's site, claiming that Microsoft had "pilfered" its content and diluted its value. Microsoft's Answer[23] raised a number of defenses explained in detail in its pleadings, including implied license, contributory negligence, and voluntary assumption of the risk. Microsoft also, argued that Ticketmaster had breached an unwritten Internet code, under which any web site operator has the right to link to anyone else's site. A number of articles in the trade press derided Ticketmaster's suit.[24] The case was settled in February 1999, on confidential terms. But Microsoft stopped the deep linking and instead used a link to Ticketmaster's home page. [25]
Kelly v. Arriba Soft

The first important US decision in this field was that of the Ninth Circuit in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.[26] Kelly complained, among other things, that Arriba's search engine used thumbnails to deep link to images on his Web page. The court found that Arriba's use was highly transformative,[27] in that it made available to Internet users a functionality not previously available, and that was not otherwise readily provided — an improved way to search for images (by using visual cues instead of verbal cues). This factor, combined with the relatively slight economic harm to Kelly, tipped the fair use balance decisively in Arriba's favor.

As in other cases, Kelly objected to linking because it caused users to bypass his home page and intervening pages. He was unable, however, to show substantial economic harm. Kelly argued largely that the part of the copyright statute violated was the public display right (17 U.S.C. § 106(5)).[28] He was aware of the difficulties under the reproduction and distribution provisions (17 U.S.C. §§ 106(1) and (3)), which require proof that the accused infringer trafficked in copies of the protected work. The court focused on the fair use defense, however, under which it ruled in Arriba's favor.
Perfect 10 v. Amazon

In Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,[29] the Ninth Circuit again considered whether an image search engine's use of thumbnail was a fair use. Although the facts were somewhat closer than in the Arriba Soft case, the court nonetheless found the accused infringer's use fair because it was "highly transformative." The court explained:

We conclude that the significantly transformative nature of Google's search engine, particularly in light of its public benefit, outweighs Google's superseding and commercial uses of the thumbnails in this case. … We are also mindful of the Supreme Court's direction that "the more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use."

In addition, the court specifically addressed the copyright status of linking, in the first US appellate decision to do so:

Google does not…display a copy of full-size infringing photographic images for purposes of the Copyright Act when Google frames in-line linked images that appear on a user's computer screen. Because Google's computers do not store the photographic images, Google does not have a copy of the images for purposes of the Copyright Act. In other words, Google does not have any "material objects…in which a work is fixed…and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated" and thus cannot communicate a copy. Instead of communicating a copy of the image, Google provides HTML instructions that direct a user's browser to a website publisher's computer that stores the full-size photographic image. Providing these HTML instructions is not equivalent to showing a copy. First, the HTML instructions are lines of text, not a photographic image. Second, HTML instructions do not themselves cause infringing images to appear on the user's computer screen. The HTML merely gives the address of the image to the user's browser. The browser then interacts with the computer that stores the infringing image. It is this interaction that causes an infringing image to appear on the user's computer screen. Google may facilitate the user's access to infringing images. However, such assistance raised only contributory liability issues and does not constitute direct infringement of the copyright owner's display rights. …While in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, the Copyright Act, unlike the Trademark Act, does not protect a copyright holder against acts that cause consumer confusion.

State of US law after Arriba Soft and Perfect 10

The Arriba Soft case stood for the proposition that deep linking and actual reproduction in reduced-size copies (or preparation of reduced-size derivative works) were both excusable as fair use because the defendant's use of the work did not actually or potentially divert trade in the marketplace from the first work; and also it provided the public with a previously unavailable, very useful function of the kind that copyright law exists to promote (finding desired information on the Web). The Perfect 10 case involved similar considerations, but more of a balancing of interests was involved. The conduct was excused because the value to the public of the otherwise unavailable, useful function outweighed the impact on Perfect 10 of Google's possibly superseding use.

Moreover, in Perfect 10, the court laid down a far-reaching precedent in favor of linking and framing, which the court gave a complete pass under copyright. It concluded that "in-line linking and framing may cause some computer users to believe they are viewing a single Google webpage, [but] the Copyright Act . . . does not protect a copyright holder against acts that cause consumer confusion."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_...of_America

The above is a good read which gives more context

(2017-03-13, 04:42 AM)Lunorian Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-13, 01:51 AM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-13, 12:48 AM)Lunorian Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 11:55 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 10:52 PM)Lunorian Wrote: [ -> ]Don't worry. Also they block me from creating threads in the support section. I think only denying support to sites that don't include the back link would be better than blocking sites with content they disagree with. For now though the issue remains and policy changes would create a better community for everyone.

I disagree. We shouldn't provide support to illegal content producing sites. This is a decision those admins have made - and a decision within the SEP that I concur with 100%.

It depends on jurisdiction of whether content is illegal. In my country linking to copyrighted content is 100% legal.

In the US and/or Australia (ironically, where I live); it isn't legal - hence my comments.

It's not illegal to link to copyright-ed content in the United States yet. If so sites such as Reddit would be liable everytime someone posted a link to a site hosting content that potentially violated copyright law. My legal advisors and copyright law experts whom I've spoken with agree with me. I can't comment on Australia as I'm not familiar with their laws.

Ohh sorry, I misread your post.

(2017-03-13, 04:42 AM)Lunorian Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-13, 01:51 AM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-13, 12:48 AM)Lunorian Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 11:55 PM)Ben Cousins Wrote: [ -> ]

(2017-03-12, 10:52 PM)Lunorian Wrote: [ -> ]Don't worry. Also they block me from creating threads in the support section. I think only denying support to sites that don't include the back link would be better than blocking sites with content they disagree with. For now though the issue remains and policy changes would create a better community for everyone.

I disagree. We shouldn't provide support to illegal content producing sites. This is a decision those admins have made - and a decision within the SEP that I concur with 100%.

It depends on jurisdiction of whether content is illegal. In my country linking to copyrighted content is 100% legal.

In the US and/or Australia (ironically, where I live); it isn't legal - hence my comments.

It's not illegal to link to copyright-ed content in the United States yet. If so sites such as Reddit would be liable everytime someone posted a link to a site hosting content that potentially violated copyright law. My legal advisors and copyright law experts whom I've spoken with agree with me. I can't comment on Australia as I'm not familiar with their laws.

---

Quote:-snip-

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_...of_America

The above is a good read which gives more context

I'm sorry but that article has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. That article refers to linking to content which is copyrighted, which is protected. It does not have anything to do with linking to illegal distribution of copyright material - which IS illegal in the USA. Deep/inline linking protection protects search engines, like Google, who link to web pages. It stops someone suing Google because Google indexed their site and linked their homepage. Without that protection search engines would not exist.

Linking to illegally distributed content - often termed Warez - is absolutely illegal in the USA. Many people have been prosecuted for it there. The reason it exists on places like reddit is because reddit complies with the DMCA, and removes it when asked. That doesn't, in any way, mean it's legal.

It is worth pointing out, if reddit decided they needed a MyBB forum, they would be denied support for the content their site hosts.