Copyright Violation
-
I just did a deep inspection of the forum website and there is no copyright notice anywhere on the forum page(s). However, on Netgate's main landing page there is and since the forum is referred there, it's covered by and under that notice: Copyright 2023 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
-
@RobbieTT said in Copyright Violation:
this does not exclude fair use and attribution
Fair use is to just link the website where the content originates or copy just one's post only without any reference to where, example here, I am only permitted to copy my statement starting with fair and ended with said; however, I cannot include your name or what you said.
-
-
Presuming you reside in the US (I live in a GDPR land) then this link that I just stumbled across is a pretty good piece and happens to overlap with some applicable UK law (even though it probably didn't consider it):
Legal Zoom - Fair Use in Social Media
It is probably as deep as non-lawyers would ever wish to go and it can be read in plain English.
️ -
@RobbieTT said in Copyright Violation:
Presuming you reside in the US (I live in a GDPR land) then this link that I just stumbled across is a pretty good piece and happens to overlap with some applicable UK law (even though it probably didn't consider it):
Legal Zoom - Fair Use in Social Media
It is probably as deep as non-lawyers would ever wish to go and it can be read in plain English.
️Yes, I am in the U.S, but I am not playing the lawyer here despite I went to law school (didn't went to be a lawyer)...so, without reading, all I have said so far is about respect and common decency to comply with copyright notices and the reasonable expectation it implies. As I stated, every website or most gave a copyright notice.
-
I looked at the Lawrence systems thread you refer to and most of the cuts there (IMO) would fall within the US definition of "Fair Use".
That said it would probably be good to additionally provide a link to the whole thread for context.
-
@Phizix said in Copyright Violation:
the US definition of "Fair Use".
As stated else where is this thread, fair use would be to post the Netgate forum's link where Steve made the statement...but to directly copy the content with the unique avatar isn't...remember, Netgate post a copyright notice...it's like writing a paper in college and make a statement in the paper that was directly copied from a book without referencing the book...the professor would scream plagiarism because how the essay was written the tone doesn't match the point where the copied text was inputted.
I am sure also Lawrence System's website as a copyright notice too. Why you think reason is to post copyright notice is on every website?
@Phizix said in Copyright Violation:
That said it would probably be good to additionally provide a link to the whole thread for context.
That's what I am saying...provide the link that anyone can click on it to see..."Steve said" link...
-
@NollipfSense said in Copyright Violation:
That's what I am saying...provide the link that anyone can click on it to see
Sounds reasonable to me as that is new authors content linking to an original source.
Of course the largest offenders are not individual users posting on a forum but news scrapers such as Google, Facebook, and plagiarism of reviews or whole forum threads. -
@Patch said in Copyright Violation:
or whole forum threads.
This latest "content" driven economy is causing folks lurking around forums with highly specialize subject, such as pfSense firewall, to capture the forum post to supposedly "create" content (stealing). Glad you brought this up.
-
@NollipfSense said in Copyright Violation:
https://forums.lawrencesystems.com/t/pfsense-and-qat-w-intel-quick-assist-adapter-8950/13057/23
IANAL but I'd expect that to fall under fair use. I agree it would be nice if they included a link back though.
-
@stephenw10 said in Copyright Violation:
I'd expect that to fall under fair use
No, it wouldn't...as I had said, I had an exact situation with a forum 15yrs ago and was successful having the forum removed the content because of my copyright notice had been given to the public and the person did not get my expressed consent in writing. Out of decency, Lawrence System should remove it.
-
I think you have a different view to most and your own experience may have overly coloured your view.
You have not fully absorbed the current precedence, the international element, the summary I suggested or even acknowledged that Steve does not automatically own the copyright to all of his contributions to this forum.
️ -
@RobbieTT said in Copyright Violation:
the summary I suggested or even acknowledged that Steve does not automatically own the copyright to all of his contributions to this forum.
Netgate does, as I had pointed out. What's the sense of having copyright notice on websites if everyone can go under supposed "fair use" and copy all they want then pasted on another website that also has a copyright notice? "Fair use" means to ask permission, and it most likely will be granted. Blatantly copying without such permission is disrespecting as well as unethical (stealing) and a form of bullying. Remember, ask and you shall receive...
The real lesson here is people will abuse just as they did with the plus (+). I have said enough...
pfSense+ 23.09 Lenovo Thinkcentre M93P SFF Quadcore i7 dual Raid-ZFS 128GB-SSD 32GB-RAM PCI-Intel i350-t4 NIC, -Intel QAT 8950.
pfSense+ 23.09 VM-Proxmox, Dell Precision Xeon-W2155 Nvme 500GB-ZFS 128GB-RAM PCIe-Intel i350-t4, Intel QAT-8950, P-cloud. -
@NollipfSense said in Copyright Violation:
just as they did with the plus (+)
Are you trying to compare some company installing the + version on some hardware they sell to someone quoting some comment posted on on a forum on another forum?
-
@johnpoz said in Copyright Violation:
Are you trying to compare some company installing the + version on some hardware they sell to someone quoting some comment posted on on a forum on another forum?
The selling was just announced, isn't it? Before that point, it was free if one registered (ask permission).
-
@NollipfSense said in Copyright Violation:
it was free if one registered (ask permission).
For lab or home use - and where did it say some company could install it and sell it on their hardware.. Without a partnership with netgate? So company X buys this box from company Y, and then company X uses in commercial use.. etc..
There has been a problem for a really long time.. Pfsense while FREE.. say version 2.7 CE.. for anyone to download and use - there is a huge difference in you doing that an installing it on whatever you want. And some company selling some box on amazon with pfsense 2.7 CE already installed, etc..
But I don't see how you could compare something like that to someone quoting a post on a public forum, on someone saying hey look what I saw on another forum?? And posting what they saw..
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.. But there is a huge difference in these things ;)
While I agree its nice if someone sees information xyz on forum ABC, and they want to spread the good info on forum DEF that they link back to where they saw it. Maybe I could take to Judge Judy and say say look billy here quoted what I said, and didn't link back to where I said it.. hahah Sure she would find in my favor!!
-
@johnpoz said in Copyright Violation:
For lab or home use - and where did it say some company could install it
The point I made is that, that got abused...nothing more. So, don't let the copyright notice gets abused.
-
@NollipfSense Well yeah its been being abused since forever.. You always find shit on amazon even for example where pfsense is pre-installed. Which not being a lawyer, nor playing one on TV or even Radio.. Know is wrong..
Took 2 seconds to find this
This is for sure not a netgate box, and I would bet my left nut they sure and the F do not have some reseller or partner agreement with netgate.. Doesn't matter if they installed CE vs + on the thing.. They should not be selling it with pfsense pre-installed.. If they want to say hey you can install all of these fancy firewall distro's on it if you want.. That would be fine, but it shouldn't be pre-installed.
But this is not anywhere close to someone quoting something said a forum on another forum
To be honest it shouldn't take a lawyer, or even someone that plays one on TV to understand how this is wrong. For starters if doesn't work correctly or whatever - it could make pfsense look bad.. This company could do something wrong when they install it, or maybe their box is just crap.. But now someone thinks that pfsense was at fault and crap, etc..
Even if pfsense is FREE, companies should not be doing such a thing without an agreement with the software company - even if that software company gives their product away for free.. Has nothing to do with why this is wrong..
An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
SG-4860 24.03 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.03 -
Actually, I never liked seeing those boxes in forum post...it's deceptively similar to Netgate's offer and should never be encourage or allowed on the forum...just me!
-
@johnpoz said in Copyright Violation:
This is for sure not a netgate box...
Even if pfsense is FREE, companies should not be doing such a thing without an agreement with the software company - even if that software company gives their product away for free.. Has nothing to do with why this is wrong..
I'm not sure it is wrong to reproduce and distribute copies of pfSense under the Apache License - it's community software. Nothing is wrong in saying your product works with pfSense either, as long as you don't claim a direct link or association with the owner or licensee.
pfSense, as a trademark, is not interchangeable with Netgate and Netgate does not own the 'pfSense' trademark. As a licensed user of the 'pfSense' trademark it is quite right that Netgate (aka Rubicon) defend their rights to preserve it. Indeed, they probably have an explicit duty to do so.
As an aside, I've not stumbled on a trademark for pfSense+ or pfSense Plus. Seems slightly odd if that is the case....
But this is not anywhere close to someone quoting something said a forum on another forum
Yep!
️
