cheshyre: Well, under protest I have (a) modified

Cheshyre (

cheshyre) wrote,
@ 2005-01-02 11:43:00

Well, under protest I have (a) modified my LJ entry that received the copyright complaint and (b) notified LJ Abuse of my actions, and asked whether that is sufficient. I have also (c) submitted a copy of the notice I received to ChillingEffects.org and will (d) file a counter-notification later today (after Ian is feeling better and can review it).

Not a fun way to start the new year. Thanks for all your support.

Added later: Well, I've filed the counter-notification.

Beyond the boilerplate, I commented:

I would also be willing to go through mediation with the accuser to negotiate an equitable solution concerning my use of her material and her use of material belonging to me and my husband.

Get a load of her comments here (which I'm sorely tempted to quote, before she removes the evidence)

Under what logic is reprinting somebody's post without attribution or notification (actions she acknowledges) considered superior to doing so with proper attribution and links!?

(Post a new comment)

	patgreene 2005-01-02 08:47 pm UTC (link)
	It would be interesting to know when she added the copyright notification to her bio. I bet it wasn't there at the time you made the post she claims was infringed. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Good catch! cheshyre 2005-01-02 09:09 pm UTC (link)
	I don't remember reading her userinfo page in detail, but on Dec. 15, she posted about writing a new bio. Whether the copyright notice existed before that, I don't really know. I wrote my post under discussion on December 4. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

cheshyre
2005-01-06 12:39 pm UTC (link)

At this point, with Ginmar threatening to sue me, I think it's in my best interest to be very careful about what I write that could either be misconstrued or used against me in a court of law.

Regarding her quoting others, rather than getting into matters of right and wrong, let's just say I find her actions hypocritical.

As for the rest, just accept my assurances that I did (and am doing) what I thought right.

I am willing to discuss this with Ginmar at any point to negotiate some mutually-agreeable compromise. If she appoints you, or someone else, as her intermediary or arbiter, I'll talk to and work with that person. And after this is all resolved, I may be willing to address these issues further with you at that point.

But I don't think it's in my best interests to be talking about this so openly with random strangers -- no offense intended.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

	lemmie get this straight... the_siobhan 2005-01-06 10:54 pm UTC (link)
	Do you have any proof that, on being asked not to use someone else's writing, Ginmar refused? If you have no such proof, why are you claiming her actions are "hypocritical"? So nobody can post anything Ginmar writes without prior permission. So if Ginmar posts something without asking it's ok, because nobody asked her not to? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

Re: lemmie get this straight...

the_siobhan
2005-01-07 12:43 am UTC (link)

By everyone except Cheshyre and her friends? Really? In the whole world? What a fascinating example of an inadvertent monoculture. You should write a paper.

OK, so quoting something verbatim, with full sources and attributions = bad.

Quoting bits and peices of something with a specific eye to selecting those portions that show the text in the worse possible light, with added commentary designed to mislead the reader as to the original meaning of the writing, then presenting the finished product as the complete text, without any references that allow the reader to see the original text in it's unaltered form = not only normal discourse, but actively applauded.

Bonus points if you can simultaneously whine about how that's what's being done to you.

Personally I think Ginmar is a big fucking baby. One piece she writes gets a negative review and the histeronics go on for a month.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

	hannahyvehu 2008-07-16 04:58 am UTC (link)
	She did this because, you know, there just wasn't any decent site serving writers' needs. Well, there was one, unnamed, that solved most of her wants, but. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	sinboy 2005-01-02 11:27 pm UTC (link)
	Sweet jesus what a drama whore. I hope she makes it home safe so she can loose that particular part of her celeberty. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	jenniferyhora 2008-07-16 03:17 pm UTC (link)
	Part of [her appeal] was that she wasn't married. You had this illusion of innocence. You can't have that when you have the hillbilly husband. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	mattblum 2005-01-03 01:06 am UTC (link)
	You might want to go ahead and put a copyright notice on your LJ userinfo page, too, not to mention Riba Rambles (if it doesn't already have one). (Reply to this)

	sinboy 2005-01-03 01:41 am UTC (link)
	It just occured to me. If she's complaining about coppyright violation, she might want to update her userpics. At least 2 of them are not her property. Anyway, it's best for you to disentangle yourself from her. She's not worth your time. Nor is she worth Ian's time in persuing her copyright violations against him. (Reply to this)

adina_atl
2005-01-03 01:52 pm UTC (link)

I dislike calling women bitches in the derogatory meaning of the word, since that is all too frequently used to dismiss assertive women. But oh, it's tempting. Instead I'll say that she is one of the most toxic individuals I've encountered in a long time. I'm with Sinboy on this one--once this mess is settled, ignore her if you can. I think you should be prepared for additional vilification once she gets the counter-notification, however.

(Reply to this)

(Reply from suspended user)

cheshyre
2005-01-05 11:50 am UTC (link)

Tell me something: In your initial post on 4th December, you claimed: "Although I will be informing ginmar that this thread exists" - but you evidently never did that.
Yes I very much did.

I made a public comment in her post that quoted Ian's, providing a link to my post. I believe I also sent her an email, but it's been long enough that I can no longer remember.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

cpolk
2005-01-06 05:53 am UTC (link)

If you quote someone else's post whole and entire (that is, clearly exceeding "fair use")

Are you certain of that? I mean utterly certain and can verify that quoting and attributing an entire LJ post is indeed a violation of copyright and not covered under the fair use laws?

because I'm not certain of that, but I am speculating that it is not a violation, and for a very simple reason. If you have a particular example of case law that set the precedent, I'd be interested in seeing it, because it'll go against the assumption that I automatically made for myself concerning fair use in this particular case - but if the legal precedent has been sewn up already, then all right, my thoughts on the legality headed in the wrong direction.

One thing that I am thinking though - quoting and attribution of other people's posts is a regular and accepted practice on livejournal. one doesn't have to go very far into journals to find examples of this sort of thing going on all the time - certainly I didn't have to look very far in the public posts of your journal to find examples of this practice. If it does come down to an actual legal battle, I don't think the case is nearly as black letter law as it may appear to you on the surface. Especially if no legal precedent has been set... but you'd probably have more of an idea if that was true than I would, of course.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

cpolk
2005-01-06 04:27 pm UTC (link)

oh, sorry. I thought you worked in the legal field in some fashion. my impression was mistaken.

However, I too have watched the situation unfold from both ends, and it's not as black and white as you appear to be insisting that it is. Courtesy is often a matter of dates. please direct your attention to 12/27, 3:59 pm in Ginmar's journal - the title of the post is "Banning."

Also, refer to Ginmar's comment on Cheshyre's post of 12/04, "Reading Comprehension Test." that comment is on 12/27, at 12:43 (pm, as this particular journal is set to 24 hour time, and ginmar's is not.)

The text of this particular post has been altered, but you will note that Cheshyre recieved her notice from the LJabuse team on 12/28 - however, she doesn't provide a timestamp for when the particular message is sent.

On the internet one can enjoy relatively instantaneous communication, but real life can and does interfere. so when attempting to communicate to someone on the internet, it's usualy to allow a courtesy period to allow someone a chance to see the message and respond--usually 48 hours, though at this particular time of year, one could expect that getting a response could take longer.

And yet Cheshyre recieved her notice on 12/28 That could be as little as 7 hours wait time for a response from her, it could be as much as 31. a bit short of the 48 hour grace period one generally gives.

As I said, it's often a matter of dates. that indicates to me, quite clearly, that Ginmar was not interested in communicating about the problem and working out a solution.

I have never met Cheshyre. I've been reading her journal for less than a year. I have disagreed with her once. She talked to me about it in a calm manner. we worked out our misunderstanding quickly and equitably, and have gone on from it without many problems.

I have never met ginmar. I had read her journal for less than a year. I have disagreed with her once.

She called me a hypocrite and dismissed me. when I responded to her in an attempt to clarify my opinion, and point out that her assumption of my opinion was actually inaccurate, she refused to respond to my comment... but I did note (in a later post) a backhanded reference to what I had said.

based on these experiences, I believe cheshyre when she says that she says that she'd rather work this out equitably, that she responded in a timely manner, and did so with courtesy. I also believe her when she says that Ginmar made no attempt to actually communicate with her. I have one example in cheshyre's case, but I have dozens of examples - probably a gross - to indicate that it would indeed be in character for ginmar to not choose actual communication.

And the situation that brought this about also points to the speculation that Ginmar is not a communicator - When Ginmar faced an opposing opinion and invitation to dialogue, she locked that post and started another which attacked the people who wanted to talk to her - quoting without attribution, I might add, one of those posts now unavailable to the public eye for the purpose of context and reference. I emphasise that to point out that the motive in both cases of quoting another person's text was the same. how can the same motive for the same activity from two people be correct and allowable for one person, but not correct and allowable for the other?

The logical answer is that it can't. It's either allowable for both, or it's allowable for neither. either both are correct in doing so, or both are incorrect in doing so, and Lewis Carroll would spin in his grave to hear otherwise.

Ginmar is the one who should back down from this, as she's the one who insists on making it a confrontation instead of stepping back, talking about it, and finding a reasonable solution to both parties. Cheshyre didn't escalate anything - she simply did exactly what the DCMA requires. at any time, Ginmar could write ches an email and say, "this is what I don't like about the quote of my post in your journal, and this is why I think it should not be there. I am willing to excise these comments from mine, but I'm firm on this - I don't want that text in yours."

And likely get back a reasonable response.

If you don't believe me, why don't you ask Ginmar to try it?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

cheshyre
2005-01-06 07:29 pm UTC (link)

"I noted the time/date. On receiving that comment, Cheshyre had no excuse not to take down the post in which she published Ginmar's writing."

I turned off comment notification for that post, and announced I was doing so in the Warnings section which I purposely put outside the cut-tags. And she made that comment twenty days after everybody else stopped commenting and left for greener discussions. Including me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

cpolk
2005-01-06 08:50 pm UTC (link)

Thanks for replying. I find your perceptions of this situation interesting.

Yes? I'm really not sure what that has to do with the basic point that on 4 December, Cheshyre published Ginmar's writing without Ginmar's permission.

Please realize that the date of the post is irrelevant. the date of focus is where ginmar commented, which is not 12/04, but 12/27, 23 days after the original post. what matters is when ginmar posted the comment. Please stay focused on what is relevant.

From the time/dates shown, Cheshyre had 24 hours to take down her 4th December post, which she failed to do: if she'd done so, LJ Abuse wouldn't have bothered her.

you will recall that I said the basic courtesy for a response is 48 hours. 24, even if it was that many, is not 48. You will also not that the notification from LJ abuse gave Cheshyre three days to respond, which is still shorter than the usual 14 days given in written communication - but is still three times the amount of time you have speculated that Ginmar gave cheshyre to comply with her demands. note the phrasing, as there is a subtle yet telling difference.

48 hours to respond to a request. 24 hours to comply to a demand. Courtesy is definitely lacking here, as is a willingness to open a dialogue.

I note that some people simply can't stand Ginmar's very direct style of communication.

your words. I percieve something different - Ginmar is aggressive, not assertive. she will write aggressively on a topic, but when someone questions her, she doesn't discuss it. she attacks, or avoids a direct confrontation and attacks indirectly. Not a satisfactory communication style, I'm afraid.

If you could refer me to one of these disagreements, I'd be happy to see it.

Nope, you have that exactly backwards. Cheshyre improperly used Ginmar's writing. On being told that Ginmar didn't want her to use it, Cheshyre is the one who left it up until LJ Abuse made her take it down...

Interesting - you must realize that I've watched the whole thing, so I know about the details you are omitting. Cheshyre attempted to talk to ginmar about the problem ginmar had, and she attempted - in the public eye - on more than one occasion, and in that public eye, ginmar pointedly ignored Cheshyre's requests to communicate, allowing an exploitation of the LJ abuse team to do her intimidation for her. Editing it out of your response doesn't make it go away - that might work for the faith based movement, but not with me.

...Cheshyre is the one who insisted on filing a countercomplaint rather than stepping back and admitting that in the matter of publishing Ginmar's writing against her will...

Cheshyre did exactly what she is permitted to do under the DMCA. Cheshyre doesn't have to knuckle under, that's not the only choice. She can persist in trying to settle this like adults, and continue to attempt to work out an equitable solution, and counterclaiming is the only way she can do that. If Ginmar doesn't want to talk like a grown up and work this out between adults, she's got the employee benefit of a legal defense system that she can refer to. Cheshyre doesn't have such a resource, and will have to retain counsel the way an ordinary citizen would. You seem to be telling me that Ginmar doesn't want to take the adult route, so I guess she'll use the advantages afforded to her by being a member of the largest military power in the world.

Okay. I think it's silly, but that's her call, not mine.

Ginmar tried that - as you pointed out yourself, she commented in Cheshyre's journal on 27/12. Cheshyre's response has visibly not been a reasonable one - has it?

IT is the opinion of this observer that Cheshyre's response has been reasonable all along. All Cheshyre has done is refused to back down from a demand she sees as unreasonable, and continue to say, "We can work this out if we just talk about it."

It is the opinion of this observer that Ginmar hasn't been reasonable since the 2nd of December, and continues to descend further and further into irrationality. Her behavior on this issue is nothing short of bizarre. I cannot see why she won't talk to Cheshyre - there is no obvious and logical reason why she would not, but I can speculate on several emotional ones.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

	Disgusted beckyzoole 2005-01-10 02:43 am UTC (link)
	OMG, I can't believe it, you just quoted from a locked post! Shouldn't someone report you to Lj Abuse? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

	What Is Proactol (Anonymous) 2008-03-07 10:44 am UTC (link)
	Thanks for very interesting article. btw. I really enjoyed reading all of your posts. It’s interesting to read ideas, and observations from someone else’s point of view… makes you think more. So please keep up the great work. Greetings. (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs