I received this email
Hello,
Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that content in your blog:
oldmaison.blogspot.com
allegedly infringes upon the copyrights of others. The content in question
is located in the following posts:
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2007/09/irvings-did-story-on-my-arrest.html
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2007/08/letter-to-editor-printed-in-irving.html
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2007/08/wendell-fulton-writes-his-view-on.html
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2007/04/irvings-is-this-news-national-enquirer.html
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2006/10/charles-sends-email-to-senator-jim_23.html
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2006/10/another-vlt-protester-is-born.html
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2006/09/rich-crosby-from-rogers-television.html
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2006/08/brent-taylor-bigot-irving-columnist.html
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2006/08/mike-archibald-from-ontario-has-idea.html
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2006/03/larry-hanley-dead-at-age-of-57-years.html
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2005/11/little-john-would-be-proud.html
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2005/11/are-irvings-calling-this-group-racists.html
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2005/10/john-mcmillan-jr-i-am-shock-and-very.html
The notice that we received, with any personally identifying
information removed, will be posted online by a service called Chilling
Effects, and we will send you the link of this notice. We do this in
accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The DMCA is a United States copyright law that provides guidelines for
online service provider liability in case of copyright infringement.
Please see http://www.educause.edu/Browse/645?PARENT_ID=254 for more
information about the DMCA, and see
http://www.google.com/blogger_dmca.html for the process that Blogger
requires in order to make a DMCA complaint.
We are asking that you please remove the allegedly infringing content in
your blog. If you do not do this within the next 3 days (by 9/15/07), we
will be forced to remove the posts in question. If we did not do so, we
would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its
merits.
We can reinstate this content into your blog upon receipt of a counter
notification pursuant to sections 512(g)(2) and (3) of
the DMCA. For more information about the requirements of a counter
notification and a link to a sample counter notification, see
http://www.google.com/blogger_dmca.html#counter.
Please note that repeated violations to our Terms of Service may result in
further remedial action taken against your Blogger account.
If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain
your own legal counsel. If you have any other questions about this
notification, please let us know.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
Spinks has a view on this one-
Click below
target="_blank">Charles
Blog
Gypsy Blogger has also a view on this issue
Click below
target="_blank">Charles
Blog
You would have believe that the Irvings would have respect for the dead???? They demanded I remove blogs I wrote about dead people!
They cross the line!!!!
The Irvings are pure ASSHOLES!!!! I will use that word because it's my blog!!!! I will tell them the same if I ever come across these jerks in person!!!!
I might have to do a little protest in Saint John!!!
The Irvings can't leave the dead alone????
Boy!!!! I am very upset!!!! Go after me but leave the dead in peace!!!!
29 comments:
My advice? Remove the copyrighted material. They're right on that point so why die on that hill.
However they have their work cut out for them. If they don't want to appear that they're targeting just this blog, they need to hit a grand number of other blogs, message boards, forums and Facebook. I'm waiting for my notification about linking to their legal notice and I suspect they'll be trolling my site with a fine tooth comb now that Charles has pointed it out. And that's fine. I'll do what they want, write about it and let the reader decide.
I would suspect somebody in the MSM will probably cover this story (not CanadaEast obviously or their bloggers) soon. Probably CBC. CBC's policy on the issue of linking is the right one, CanadaEast's is archaic, IMHO.
This is going to make for an interesting end to the week. :P
I jut got up and I'm still upset.
Now? If you believe I was bad with the Irvigs in the past?
Well? You haven't seem nothing yet!!!!
ARG!!!!
If your upset you can't be surprised Charles, this was pointed out to you many times. For Spinks, its highly unlikely they will make a stink about using a link as copyright infringement. They've given Charles ten chances and only complained when you took complete articles.
For Charles, there is an option, namely getting a different blog provider besides Google. Or else follow that link and challenge it. In case people haven't noticed, this is NOT the US so the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act" has no jurisdiction here.
Again, just do it the proper way, and write an article about the article with footnotes. As noted at gypsy blog, you could actually write a longer piece which included every line as a footnote. That would be covered under 'fair use' policy as a 'review'. I understand that would take some work, but we're only talking about very few posts here. Hell, if you want to do that then I'll write it for you.
Just remove what they want you to remove and stop crying about it.
move on to other things.
You are just like a little baby.
If you cant get your way you take a temper tantrum.
Google must just wipe the blog clean. It is all non-sense anyway and innuendoes against many good people.
Bye, bye kook.
Charles, you can't just copy & paste things into your blog. It's not Irving that makes this up, it's the law. It's also not the nice thing to do. (I know that Irving does things that aren't nice, but 2 wrongs don't make a right)
Instead you can just link directly to the articles. I know that Irving says you can't (see spinks' comment above), but those web site user agreements are unenforceable and won't stand up in court.
So remember Charles, link, don't copy & paste and Irving won't bother you.
I don't see this as a complicated issue. There is a law against copying an article. If there is no complaint, no problem. If there is a complaint, you must remove the article and the victim can press charges against you.
Here's an example of a similar situation: "If you steal something". If the victim makes a complaint, there is no problem. If the victim makes a complaint, you must give back what you took and the victim can press charges against you.
Charles you are not the victim in the event of you violating copyrights, the newspaper is.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this. You can write what you want on your blog. You can talk or comment anything that has a copyright, but you do not have the right to copy something that has a copyright.
As for the Irvings, they are in their right to defend their copyrights.
You can dislike the Irvings and the Irvings can dislike Charles but this doesn't make any difference to the law that exist in this country.
More empty treaths from Charles. You are not going to do anything. Just like you were suppose to tell your readers the reason you were banned from the legislature several times over the past year. Well we are still waiting.
I just read this blog for a second time and my interpretation of this message is that Google will not shut down this blog in a few days, they will remove the stolen material if you don't. And if they receive more complaints and can prove that they are valid then they will be forced to take other actions.
So you are given a chance here. And you copied stories on people that passed away (may they rest in peace)that was written by someone else. So that is also stealing, it doesn't matter if it was about a person that passed away.
The issue here is not that Canada East is picking on dead people it is that they don't want you to steal from them. That's what people has been trying to tell you for the past few days, heck the past year.
Actually, if Google agrees then its them who will shut you down, not Irving. If you were doing nothing wrong then Google would not have sent you a warning. So your beef now is with Google, not Irving.
Hm, sound slike they'll just remove the posts in question, but leave the rest of the blog intact.
That's not too bad I guess.
The blog will live on to fight another day.
I would file a counter notice or whatever, claiming you reposted the articles to review and comment on them, and that you made no money from doing so.
Stay tuned, stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned,stay tuned.
I say WTG Irving and WTG Google!
It's about time someone has made you accountable Charles!!!
The headline to this thread shows you do not always tell the real truth. Google is telling you what you have violated and HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM. YOU choose NOT to fix the problem so therefore YOU are the one responsible for this blog shutting down. But alas, we know you will never admit to anything being your fault.
If I was the Irvings I would take your threat at 8:22am very serious and get a TRO against you.
From what you have posted said in fact no one will not be shutting you down in the next few days. They are suggesting that if you do not remove posts in question they (google) will do it for you and also give you fair warning to refrain from the practice in the future or expect further action. That spinks has an opinion is of course nothing new. That it matters to anyone else is dubious at best.
That spinks has an opinion is of course nothing new.
Hmmm, just like a certain passing individual. Nice dig though jp. :)
I am curious though if Charles starts linking to articles which is more the normal practice in blogging if CanadaEast will still have a beef. It's against their policy (although legally dubious) so how long until they go after everyone who is linking? Cutting and pasting is wrong, I think generally we're in agreement on this one (Charles excluded) but targeting only Charles seems a bit odd. Anyone here can find lots of other examples of CanadaEast articles "lifted" without permission in a matter of minutes thanks to Google.
I understand that CBC attempted to do a story about this but CanadaEast refused to do an interview (that's right a media outlet that demands everyone talk to them refuses to do an interview. Note to those out there when Irving media calls, you can tell them when they start doing interviews so will you) yet they don't mind throwing posts up on this blog threatening all kinds of action. They're right on the copyright, without question but there are lots of questions as a subscriber to their paper I am curious about yet they refuse to be accountable, clear or consistent on a few points. They've known what Charles has been doing for a looong time but go after him after they start up their own blogs? It's curious at the least. Still...remove the stuff Charles. Too easy.
Your head line is inaccurate. No one will shut down your blog. Google will remove the posts you cut and pasted from Irving papers. Not your blog, the copied material.
And it will be Google, not Jamie Irving.
And by the way, you have nothing to worry about if you simply eliminate those posts, and stops copying the work of others.
Those @$$holes! Charles, since I moved to Calgary from Freddy a few months ago your blog is the best source of news in Fredericton that I've seen. You call it as you see it, and your nose is up nobody's arse. If they shut you down I hope you start a new one, and I'll visit that one every day too. Godspeed.
Just a comment to spinks.
It's funny how you tell charles that he must take down material he has copied and pasted from canada east and instead link to it, yet you seem to have no qualms about stealing images from other sources for your 101 people who are screwing up canada.
I somehow doubt that you personally took all those photos, or that you asked for permission to use them either.
The Irvings have controlled the TV news, radio news and paper news. Controlling the Blog News is definitely wrong and I hope they can't. We have the Ragg papers everyday and they seem to print what they want and spin the news the way they want.
Our freedom is taken away in NB and we know who controls the government and who calls the shots.
We seem to have alot of people on this blog who feel they have all the answers and back the Irvings. Frankly try to discourage people from voicing their opinions and speaking out.
Thanks Charles for this Blog but we need more back bone from more people!
Good question 9:48. When looking for photos for 101 if it said copyright on it I didn't use it. If the owner sends a request that I have to remove the photo I will. Just because a photo is on the Internet doesn't automatically mean its copyrighted.
Charles has just been taunting the Irvings into taking action so he can say"oh the big bullies.They are picking on the little guy".Well,it is long past time to take issue with your slanderous comments.You post all this religious literature and then ask if the Irvings are religious.Well,you obviously aren't,because your words are totally contrary to any Christian message.Stop being such a hypocrite.Just because you attend church,does not mean that you follow any true Christian principles.Try the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you","Love thine enemies",etc. and maybe we can be convinced you are sincere when you post"God's Minute."I'm sure your priest-friend would not condone what you do and say.
Hey Spinks
You must have missed this at the bottom of the globe and mail website you snagged the two columnist photos from then:
© Copyright 2007 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Here's their copyright blah blah
under terms and conditions too
RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF MATERIALS
All Content available on a CTVGMPI Site, including the manner in which such Content is presented, and the Services are: Copyright © CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc., its affiliates and/or licensors. All rights reserved. Such Content is protected by Canadian and worldwide copyright laws and treaty provisions. CTVGMPI and/or its licensors grants you a limited non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use and display on your computer or other electronic access device, the Content and Services for your own personal, private and non-commercial use only, provided that you do not modify the Content and that you maintain all copyright and other proprietary notices. Except as provided herein, you agree not to reproduce, make derivative works of, retransmit, distribute, sell, publish, communicate, broadcast or otherwise make available any of the Content obtained through a CTVGMPI Site or any of the Services, including without limitation, by caching, framing or similar means, without the prior written consent of the respective copyright owner of such Content.
A bunch of those image i know were shot by canadian press or other news photographers photographers -david emerson in the house of commons,chretien, chuck guite
here's their copyright info
All content placed on this website is protected by copyright and remains the property of The Canadian Press (CP). The BlackBerry and RIM families of related marks, images and symbols are the exclusive properties of and trademarks or registered trademarks of Research In Motion Limited – used on this website by permission.
Permission to use CP news, information or photographs may be obtained in advance with payment of fees in accordance with current prices. Find out how to obtain copyright permissions to use CP’s content or contact us at 416-507-2129.
lots of them are obvious commercial portraits-sook yin lee, nelly furtado, terry milewski, david sobey
so are you saying it's okay to just take images off the internet unless someone complains? and you may also be taking images from other websites that have violated copyright law.
Seems to me that if you are in a stolen car, the fact you don't know it's stolen doesn't seem to deter police from charging you.
also, instead of embedding the linked images, it appears you've taken the time to download then reupload the images. so really, what you are doing is the same things charles is. the only difference is that the people who's copyright he is violating after going after him for it.
A Canadian publisher using an American law to try to force the removal of material from a blog written by a Canadian based on US jurisprudence?
A key issue is here is infringement. Does the publication of copyright material in this blog result in the loss of value to the copyright holder?
In other words, do the Irving papers in question suffer an economic loss as a result? Or is this simply schoolyard bullying dolled up in a suit and tie?
- anonymouse
It isn't a Canadian company going after Charles, it's Google, an American company. They are reacting to a claim of copyright infringement by a Canadian company but if you took the time to properly READ the notice sent to Charles, its not CanadaEast threatening to shut him down, it Google. Charles is violating Google's terms of use. Those are the facts. The rest is pure speculation and conspiracy theory but the regular nutjobs on this blog.
No doubt someone took the photo. Copyrighted? I really don't know. As mentioned if the photo had a copyright on it I didn't use it but I didn't search every single site that had the same photo on it to check. The Internet is pretty vast. However, if there's an issue, (which you seem to have more with me than a photo) have the person contact me and I'll change it with something else or as you can see there are a handful of entries which have no photo because I could not find a non-copyrighted photo.
This raises an interesting question though about what is public domain and what is not. It was interesting trying to find photos because many sites had disclaimers while others went the proper step and had technology which made it impossible to use the photo. That would seem to be the way to go.
Just as many people hate 101 as love it which probably explains why it got hacked this weekend and why I've had to go with a different look for it. I have no problem making changes when legitimately requested but not for one anonymous poster who has anaxe to grind. Thanks for the advice.
Spinks
I could care less about the photos you are using since they aren't mine, but I'm just trying to point out that you are guilty of the same things that Charles is.
Are any of those people going to demand your blog be shut down? I doubt it, since it's probably not worth the bother.
For whatever reason, people seem to think they can just take any image they want if it's on the internet. Well, you can't.
Hey Charles ... what happened in your meeting with the Irving guy at Tim's? I don't know if you answered it before becasuse there are so many pictures on here now that everything else likes gets pushed out of the way. Any chance you could move the HJ&BF pictures over to a separate place because if your on dial-up like me, it takes forever to see the blog. Thanks bro. Fred
Post a Comment