User talk:Copyvioistheft

Would you kindly elucidate further on what I'm sure is a highly worthwhile mission? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Hi, I know you're getting these messages, because a lovely 'You have new messages' box is being flagged up while you're editing. Would you be so kind as to create some sort of central coordination from this, rather than just spamming the template on every image you see. Once it's pushed off recent changes, y'see, we won't be able to address your concerns. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Copyright violations Copyvioistheft 13:27, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Deliciously curt. I would, however, point you here - if you want to constructively remove copyright violation from this site, then discuss it there. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Unless Mr. Copyvio presents links showing that these are not GFDL or PD, I suggest just reverting the silly templates. Or is it incumbent upon us to dig out where we got the images and tag them more clearly? Also, only the copyright holder can make a complaint, I suspect "copyvioistheft" does not own these images. human 14:13, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Ahah! Human has a point. En garde, Mr Copyvio ... OR SHOULD I SAY KARAJOU! =o ZOMGWORFLES. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

Can't be Karajou, he's completely clueless about copyright issues. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 14:32, 17 February 2008 (EST)

I am not releasing images under license - you are. It is not for me to show that they are not GFDL or PD, it is for you to show that they are. The copyright holder does not have to complain to you - anyone can complain that you are releasing content under GFDL to which you have no legal claim to relicense as GFDL, as you are currently doing. Copyvioistheft 15:38, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia - So Much Worse

You should go inform them of the same :-)-αmεσ (advocate) 13:33, 17 February 2008 (EST)

So because some other site violates copyright it is okay for this site to do so? Copyvioistheft 15:38, 17 February 2008 (EST)

No, I just think they're a bigger priority.-αmεσ (advocate) 15:46, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Please identify the source of the images and show that they are not used in parody and the license forbids use and I'm fairly certain the admins here would remove them. On the other hand, I would strongly recommend you go to CP and advise them of the violations too - just to be consistent. Especialy the GDFL images - give [1] a read on that matter. They can't use 'parody' as a defense and often are quite blatant about stealing images as 'fair use'. --Shagie 18:37, 17 February 2008 (EST)

GFDL

I'm sorry to be aggressive, but do you know anything at all about licensing? The site being under the GFDL does preclude the inclusion of images under other licenses. Seriously, it's getting annoying. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 15:04, 17 February 2008 (EST)

So shall we delete any image he tagged that we can't prove is gfdl or "less"? human 15:27, 17 February 2008 (EST)

That depends how seriously you take copyright violation. Apparently you don't think it applies to you at all. Copyvioistheft 15:38, 17 February 2008 (EST)

No, although we should seriously reconsider adding more non-freely-licensed images without supplying adequate fair-use rationale.

And Rob, go back to CP, please. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 15:40, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Apparently you aren't reading what Linus & I just said? We are discussing the issue that you have raised to make sure we aren't a den of theives. human 15:41, 17 February 2008 (EST)

How about this, CVIS, you create a list of images you believe are copyvios, and we'll go through them and decide? --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 15:52, 17 February 2008 (EST)

I haven't delved too deeply into but isn't the GFDL for our site text only? (bottom of WP pages: Text is available under GNU Free Documentation License. RW says content - maybe this should be reworded)

“”The GFDL was designed for manuals, textbooks, other reference and instructional materials, and documentation which often accompanies GNU software. However, it can be used for any text-based work, regardless of subject matter. For example, Wikipedia uses the GFDL for all of its text.

I think media come under different licenses. Many images on WP are Creative Commons, PD or even (dare I say it) Fair Use as well as GFDL. Just because pages are published under GFDL then that does not apply to the images used therein. Images uploaded as FU on WP may only be used in articles related to the image subject not things like userboxen or talk pages. I think most of the images tagged by Copyvio are fun stuff on user pages anyway so wouldn't really affect us if they were zapped. Genghis ^Marauding 15:56, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Lulz

Thank you for making things interesting! You know we get so bored here during our little boycotts, and it's so very nice of you to break up the monotony. I'm much enjoying the ensuing "drama", you are one of the lulziest trolls we've had in a while. Uchiha^KATON! 17:37, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Is it time now to say INTERNET HATE MACHINE? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן ^{שְׁלֹום}

I thought Anonymous was busy harassing the Church of Scientology this week?

(And if they're bored with that, it's too bad we can't point them at CP. If we thought that place was bad NOW....) --Gulik 18:21, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Actually, I was chatting with some friends who went on the protest, and they highlighted a distinction - Anonymous can do massive, large scale attacks, but can't infiltrate to save their EFG masks. They have done a few raids, but they've been utter failures - nothing like the glory of Samwell or OSM. I do wish that CoS had their own CP-style wiki - now that would be lulzy. Also, it could result in the rather nifty situation that I sort of sparked off (it sputtered and died, though, and had to be brought here) of CP launching their own crusade against another website. --82.44.64.173