This topic contains 31 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by 
The Travelin Man 11 years, 4 months ago.
they’re blaming the response on hackers.
In paragraph 5, they own up to their misdeed.
The hacking seems to me to refer to their Facebook page.
I’m not defending the publication … I’m sure they knew better, but somehow got their a## in a sling … I don’t see them trying to skate through this by blaming hackers for the original issue.
right, hackers did it. wink-wink, nudge nudge.
well done mar52, for seeing through the bs.
What an easy way out. I don’t buy it.
That’s good. One should never buy stolen property or phoney excuses.
What an easy way out. I don’t buy it.
http://www.cookssource.com Food magazine posts apology over use of unauthorized material
I gave up on the potential problems here as a result of people posting copyrighted material a while ago. It appears not to matter to those who would end up paying for it.
So, I take it Scorereader is suggesting that this site be shut down so that the owners of Roadfood.com don’t get sued because some drunk, in the middle of the night, uploaded a copyrighted story to this message board.
So, I take it you haven’t been reading the thread and my suggestions. Typical.
Please send us written and irrefutable evidence that you have authorization to post this cute little dancing kitty cat
[style=”color: #008000;”]I’m sorry but such work was provided to me by a crypto-anarchist and I can not comply with your request.[/style]
Crypto-anarchist? I think we are going to have to watch you a bit more carefully.
Please send us written and irrefutable evidence that you have authorization to post this cute little dancing kitty cat
[style=”color: #008000;”]I’m sorry but such work was provided to me by a crypto-anarchist and I can not comply with your request.[/style]
I’ve been pointing out the problem with allowing copyrighted material to be posted here without permission for a few years. Apparently it doesn’t bother those who post it here, or those who are likely to end up on the receiving end of legal troubles for permitting it.
What concerns me recently regarding copyright and theft of intellectual property is the rise and growing field of legal extortion mills under the guise of copyright protection. It’s no longer a C&D request as a reasonable effort to stop infringement, it’s now an automatically generated demand letter threatening legal action that can be averted for a price. This is no longer about copyright protection, it’s been perverted into a revenue generator. They’re no longer targeting the true infringers that are making a profit off the work of others, they’re now concentrating on the little guy such as bloggers or independent websites on the assumption that you’d rather pay them off rather then calling their bluff and face the possiblity of expensive litigation and possible award of damages.
you do realize it’s ok to post a pic of something that is in the public domain, right?
Davydd:
From my experience if a user uploads a copyright file Roadfood.com is not legally liable or required to police it.
Well, that’s not true. All content on roadfood.com is the responsiblility of roadfood.com
The takedown notification as outlined in DMCA can alleviate the responsibility of user imputted data IF the web-provider follows the DMCA statute. Right now, roadfood.com is not DMCA compliant, so it can’t rely on DMCA if a copyright owner causes havoc.
BTW – it would cost roadfood.com $105 and the time to fill out a piece of paper to become compliant and have the protections DMCA affords.
As per: don’t see a lot posted on Roadfood.com that appears to be a copyright violation. Um, pics, recipes and articles are reprinted here all the time. It’s gotten better as people realize using links is the best option, but it still happens a lot.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.