List of children being currently victimized at CALO, offsite

[psy]

I have nothing but respect for you and ginger

However,  you and ginger were in NO way required to take down those names and treatment plans after that letter demanding you do under DMCA statutes, anymore then you would be after you received a letter demanding your take down offending material under defamation statutes

I'm sorry, but you're wrong.  The DMCA changed things in the world of free speech, and not for the better.  If we didn't comply, they would have simply sent the DMCA to Dreamhost which would have probably not only taken the post offline, but the entire of Fornits.  Even IF we decided to resist the requirements of the DMCA, I can guarantee you Dreamhost would not have.  If they wouldn't have, their upstream provider would have to and so forth.  Even Google complies with DMCA requests because they have no other choice.

The DMCA is not like other claims, you're guilty until proven innocent. Information is considered likely to be infringing unless you contest it.  The reason for this, supposedly, is because information can be downloaded so quickly that thousands of copies can be made, causing irrecoverable damage of sorts.  It was designed because copies could be made so quickly and in such number that court cases against all of the copies would be impossible and removal time would be critical.  It sort of makes sense, if it didn't have such dire consequences for free speech.

Look.  You don't believe me, read this handy article:

http://writingonyourpalm.net/column010903.htm

The DMCA is also being used as a club by corporations to silence criticism. Another article, also in Salon, tells the story of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, a non-profit group dedicated to shutting down British medical research company Huntingdon Life Sciences. HLS contacted SHAC's web hosting provider, Envirolink, and invoked the DMCA, claiming that SHAC had infringed on their copyrights. They didn't provide any specific examples, but rather objected to the SHAC pages in their entirety. Envirolink, a company that provides free web hosting to non-profit organizations, was forced to pull the plug without further discussion. According to Josh, Knauer, the founder of Envirolink, "It's very clear that Huntingdon Life Sciences just wants to shut them up." The sites are required by law to remain down for ten days before the accused can contest the accusation and prove that they're not infringing.

Trust me when I say, we had no choice at all but to comply.  It's not a question of balls.  It's a question of survival of the site.  Move to Canada, you say?  Well.  If we do the law there sucks when it comes to defamation and all sorts of other things such as the ever-vague "hate speech".  I like my first amendment, thank you very much.

One day, the Supremes will strike the DMCA down, i'm sure of it...  but until that point, we're held more or less at it's mercy.  I truly am sorry, but we had no choice to comply and this was a decision made by both myself and Ginger.

[Anonymous]

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/ ... er-content
""if you allow your site's user to post content you can protect yourself from copyright infringement claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), as you establish effective "notice-and-takedown" procedures, promptly remove content when a copyright owner notifies you it is infringing, and have no knowledge that the material is infringing.


"""YOU ARE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THESE SAFE HARBOR PROVISIONS , but doing so may help you avoid copyright infringement liability. The sections below address those provisions of section 512 that may apply to you and discuss what you need to do in order to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions. """

[Che Gookin]

Psy,

I think you and ginger did the right thing. Law or no law those treatment plans had no place on this forum. The names don't bother me so much, but the outing of those kid's slanderous piles of shit torment plans are unconscionable. We are all better off for them having been removed. I suggest those of you playing internet lawyer take it upon yourself to consult someone who might actually know the real story behind DMCA.

[Che Gookin]

And to top it off, lemme finish by saying this...

The part I love about the DMCA is it requires Well Proxied to do his own fighting rather than forcing Ginger and Psy to do it for them. If Well Proxied wants to fight for his freedom of speech he can stand right up and do it.

Will the Real Well Proxied please stand up?

[Anonymous]

Fornits did not have to take anything down, failing to do so would just remove its automatic, statutory exemption from culpability in "copyright infringement."

Whether or not they would be culpable would be settled in civil arbitration. ISPs have refused to submit to these notices in the name of “free speech” before and won.  

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070913niles/

 Diebold sent dozens of cease-and-desist letters to ISPs hosting leaked internal documents revealing flaws in Diebold's e-voting machines. The company claimed copyright violations and used the DMCA to demand that the documents be taken down. One ISP, OPG, refused to remove them IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH, and thus became the first ISP to test whether it would be held liable for the actions of its users in such a situation."

Decision: Diebold sought to use the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions—which were designed to protect ISPs, not copyright holders—as a sword to suppress publication of embarrassing content rather than as a shield to protect its intellectual property.

[Anonymous]

Fornits did not have to take anything down, failing to do so would just remove its automatic, statutory exemption from culpability in "copyright infringement."

Whether or not it would be culpable would be settled in civil arbitration. ISPs have refused to submit to these notices in the name of “free speech” before and won.  

http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/070913niles/

 Diebold sent dozens of cease-and-desist letters to ISPs hosting leaked internal documents revealing flaws in Diebold's e-voting machines. The company claimed copyright violations and used the DMCA to demand that the documents be taken down. One ISP, OPG, refused to remove them IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH, and thus became the first ISP to test whether it would be held liable for the actions of its users in such a situation."

Decision: Diebold sought to use the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions—which were designed to protect ISPs, not copyright holders—as a sword to suppress publication of embarrassing content rather than as a shield to protect its intellectual property.

llllllllllllllllllllll;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

[Anonymous]

Good luck using the DMCA on a Canadian server

This totals to 33 children being victimized, minus one escapee and "graduates", plus however much fresh meat Ken's managed to lie his way into getting.

Has anyone else had trouble opening this? Another site cave without a fight, just like fornits?

Thank you to the people who are fighting back. And if its really so shameful to be linked to this place, parents, why have you confined your sons and daughters in it? Is the act of being raped shameful, or just when people find out about it?

[Anonymous]

Has anyone else had trouble opening this? Another site cave without a fight, just like fornits?

It's just you, it's working fine from here.

[Anonymous]

:bump:

[Anonymous]

7

:bump:

[Anonymous]

you people are really sickening.  there are children who need help and you take it upon yourselves to violate them by using their names?  that is immoral and God willing illegal.

[psy]

you people are really sickening.  there are children who need help and you take it upon yourselves to violate them by using their names?  that is immoral and God willing illegal.

Who is you people?  You just everybody by the action of one idiot?  The names aren't even on this site.  We have no control over that.  Just FYI, most here found the posting of the names and treatment profiles disgusting.

[Anonymous]

you people are really sickening.  there are children who need help and you take it upon yourselves to violate them by using their names?  that is immoral and God willing illegal.

Who is you people?  You just everybody by the action of one idiot?  The names aren't even on this site.  We have no control over that.  Just FYI, most here found the posting of the names and treatment profiles disgusting.

I suppose common sense would tell you that I am speaking to those who posted AND CONDONED the posting of the names...they may have been 'removed', but they were put out there and people have saved that list!!!

[psy]

]I suppose common sense would tell you that I am speaking to those who posted AND CONDONED the posting of the names...they may have been 'removed', but they were put out there and people have saved that list!!!

Well.  "You people" sounded like a pretty broad swipe.  I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

[Anonymous]

]I suppose common sense would tell you that I am speaking to those who posted AND CONDONED the posting of the names...they may have been 'removed', but they were put out there and people have saved that list!!!

Well.  "You people" sounded like a pretty broad swipe.  I'm sorry if I misunderstood.

no worries, 'you people' was meant towards those who did it and condoned it happening.  one would hope we are all concerned with the best interests of children!