OMG mamas, I'm so upset!!! - Page 2

[bandgeek]

Originally Posted by Poogles0213 

That is not what I said. In response to you saying you've never met a more judgemental person than myself, I said the judgement that I see from posters here on MDC (not necessarily yourself) over things like circumcision and CIO (characterizing these things as "child abuse" for instance), is far worse than any judgement I, personally, have directed at people who make decisions I disagree with. I did not mention your specific views on circumcision, nor defend all of the judgement on the blog in question, so please don't misrepresent my words as such.

You dont have to mention me specifically. I'm one of "them" aren't I? Anyway, I stand by what I said. What you all do is abhorrent. Humiliating and shaming women in a public forum? Have you nothing better to do with your life?  Are you all so unhappy with your lives that you get a rush from scouring the internet to find gold mines of stories like this? I already contacted a lawyer. If you dont stop calling me out personally, YOU will be hearing from her as well. What i dont understand is why your past posts seem to be in favor of a woman's right to choose? Why the charade? In hopes someone here will trust you enough to give you some gory details to hand over to that woman? I hope you wake up and realize that her blog does nothing for your "cause". All it does is make you all look like fanatics who thrive on bullying.

[Buzzbuzz]

I am deeply intrigued as to what you possibly could have contacted a lawyer about and what possible cause of action you think you might have?

Or is this just a case of "if I mention the word lawyer I might be able to make other people be quiet?"

[kathymuggle]

Originally Posted by Buzzbuzz 

I am deeply intrigued as to what you possibly could have contacted a lawyer about and what possible cause of action you think you might have?

Or is this just a case of "if I mention the word lawyer I might be able to make other people be quiet?"

She might be able to make the owners of the site take down her post, on copyright grounds or harassment grounds.  I do not know, and I would try and research it a bit ahead of time to see if I have a case before laying down money.  

Mama, I am so, so, so sorry.  To use your pain for their cause and celebrity is disgusting.

Edited by kathymuggle - 8/1/12 at 5:38am

[LLQ1011]

Originally Posted by Buzzbuzz 

I am deeply intrigued as to what you possibly could have contacted a lawyer about and what possible cause of action you think you might have?

Or is this just a case of "if I mention the word lawyer I might be able to make other people be quiet?"

Oh she has grounds. content was copied word for word for harassment and slander purposes. You better believe its illegal. Just because its on the internet does not mean the content is open for public use.

The lady is more than welcome to put links or refer to the story but you cannot just copy someones work word for word. Beleive me, I work with original work fiction, biographical, and blog sites. I have had stuff removed from sites for users many times. I didn't even need a lawer but I am sure it helps. especially with the slander and harassment parts. Its nice too when people like you post comments like that. It adds to the harassment part because people are tracking her posts for malicious intent.

And even if nothing is done because these beautiful women just don't want to deal with this hurtful ordeal Karma sure is a bitch too.

[fayebond]

eLLQ1011, I totally agree with you!  Its amazing to me how people think that everything on the internet is free for the taking.  Its not, and it can't be. Besides, if it WAS all free for the copying, there would be far fewer resources available (witness youtube's movie-for-rent features).

[Buzzbuzz]

Oh, I understand that as to the OP -- I was curious as to why bankgeek was hiring a lawyer.

Of course, the fair use doctrine does exist as well.

[LLQ1011]

Fair use only applies for personal use in this case. She is using it to further her professional site that has ads that pay her. This is not for her personal use.
 

Edited by LLQ1011 - 8/4/12 at 1:50am

[Buzzbuzz]

I believe that is incorrect -- per the copyright office website, there is actually a 4 prong test and whether the use is "commerical" or not is only one part of one of the 4 prongs.

Items that are cited as examples of "fair use" on the copyright office's website including the following, several of which could potentially apply to the situation in question:

“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

[Cynthia Mosher]

That may be true, BuzzBuzz. But I believe the burden of proof is on the defendant. A copyright owner can still claim infringement and hire a lawyer to move it to legal proceedings. That could serve to discourage the site owner from using their post rather than spending resources to defend their fair use claim. Even though it may indeed come under fair use many people will not choose to go to court and bear the cost of doing so just to get the judgement of fair use. And frankly, if it were my loss being used in such a way I would seriously consider taking it to a lawyer.  

[Adaline'sMama]

Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher 

That may be true, BuzzBuzz. But I believe the burden of proof is on the defendant. A copyright owner can still claim infringement and hire a lawyer to move it to legal proceedings. That could serve to discourage the site owner from using their post rather than spending resources to defend their fair use claim. Even though it may indeed come under fair use many people will not choose to go to court and bear the cost of doing so just to get the judgement of fair use. And frankly, if it were my loss being used in such a way I would seriously consider taking it to a lawyer.  

Me too. Its just wrong.

[LLQ1011]

Originally Posted by Buzzbuzz 

I believe that is incorrect -- per the copyright office website, there is actually a 4 prong test and whether the use is "commerical" or not is only one part of one of the 4 prongs.

Items that are cited as examples of "fair use" on the copyright office's website including the following, several of which could potentially apply to the situation in question:

“quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Short passages are that... short. A few sentances. Not whole paragraphs multiple times. And like a previous poster said, the burnden of proof is on the defendant and I would hate to say it but I doubt any judge would look kindly on a woman who exploits other peoples tragedy for her own personal monetary gain and internet popularity.  I guess it might fall under the parody area, but then she would have to prove that she was doing it all in gest and not for slandering purposes. Review and criticism applies to more public outlets, movies, music, public figures. I guess it could be argued that because it was posted online, but again a judge will decide that. If you can hire a lawer to have rude comments about you removed from google. You sure as hell can hire one to remove something like this.  It happens every single day.

[kristenburgess]

Just want to offer more ((hugs)) mama - I know the site you're talking about and it always leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth to see it crop up.  There are so many better ways to help and empower women so that birth choices are safe.  It's sad she feels the need to steal your story and violate the memory of your little one to further an agenda set to control, not to teach or empower :(
 

[Poogles0213]

Originally Posted by bandgeek 

You dont have to mention me specifically. I'm one of "them" aren't I? Anyway, I stand by what I said. What you all do is abhorrent. Humiliating and shaming women in a public forum? Have you nothing better to do with your life?  Are you all so unhappy with your lives that you get a rush from scouring the internet to find gold mines of stories like this? I already contacted a lawyer. If you dont stop calling me out personally, YOU will be hearing from her as well. What i dont understand is why your past posts seem to be in favor of a woman's right to choose? Why the charade? In hopes someone here will trust you enough to give you some gory details to hand over to that woman? I hope you wake up and realize that her blog does nothing for your "cause". All it does is make you all look like fanatics who thrive on bullying.

I try not to lump people into groups, thus I did not lump you in with the ultra-judgemental people I've seen post here, since I've never seen anything from you that seems that judgemental. Likewise, I would appreciate not being lumped in with all the people who read/post at the blog in question - there is no monolithic group there, just as there is not here. I have never humiliated or shamed anyone on a public forum. Disagreed with, yes. Discussed their stories, yes. Please show me anywhere that I, personally, have aimed to humiliate or shame anyone?

I don't take your threat of a being contacted by a lawyer too seriously, I'm afraid. I've done nothing illegal.

I am all in favor of a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, whether the topic is birth control, abortion, birth, prostitution, porn....whatever. My concerns lie with women being truly informed of all the risks and benefits of her choices. I do not feel that is currently the case for many, many women seeking HB, UC etc (not saying NONE of them are truly informed) - I certainly do not feel I was fully informed when I was planning on a UC, and there have been many other women who have said the same to me.

Also, FYI, I've never sent any stories or information directly to "that woman" - anything I've ever said is publically viewable in the comments section.

Since it was indeed that blog that changed my mind about birth, and the minds of many others (both those who have already given birth OOH and those who were planning on it), I will have to respectfully disagree that it does nothing for my "cause".

[Poogles0213]

Originally Posted by LLQ1011 

Oh she has grounds. content was copied word for word for harassment and slander purposes. You better believe its illegal. Just because its on the internet does not mean the content is open for public use.

The lady is more than welcome to put links or refer to the story but you cannot just copy someones work word for word. Beleive me, I work with original work fiction, biographical, and blog sites. I have had stuff removed from sites for users many times. I didn't even need a lawer but I am sure it helps. especially with the slander and harassment parts. Its nice too when people like you post comments like that. It adds to the harassment part because people are tracking her posts for malicious intent.

And even if nothing is done because these beautiful women just don't want to deal with this hurtful ordeal Karma sure is a bitch too.

First, it would be libel (written word), not slander (spoken word). Second, the content in question must be UNTRUE and hurt the reputation of the individual in question. What was untrue about what was written (obviously, opinions cannot be untrue)?

You cannot just copy someone's work word for word, you're right....unless you credit the person who originally wrote it. Which was done.

I also don't think harrasment is in play here.