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.

Good catch!

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.

Re: Good catch!

I've been discussing this with your friends, but as far as I know, you haven't responded explaining:

1. Why do you think you have a right to use Ginmar's writing against her clearly expressed wishes?

2. If you object to your writing being quoted on her journal, your proper course of action is to ask her to take it down - just as she asked you. Have you ever done this?

3. Surely you're aware that copyright is legally inherent in writing. A copyright notice saves argument (or should) but it makes no difference whether Ginmar put up the copyright notice on the 15th of December or November or January last year.

It's a basic matter of courtesy: the moment Ginmar commented to tell you your use of her writing was unwelcome to her, you should have taken it down. Why did you file a countercomplaint when surely, you knew you were in the wrong?

(This says nothing about who was wrong/right/whatever in the original argument, of course.)

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.

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.

Well, if you don't want to be sued, why not just apologise and agree you shouldn't have done it? You were wrong and you shouldn't have done it.

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

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"?

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

Okay... so you think you have a right to publish other people's writing without their consent for whatever purpose you choose, and they have no right to object to it. Fine.

And after this is all resolved, I may be willing to address these issues further with you at that point.

Oh, I'm just a regular reader of Ginmar's journal. Nothing more, nothing less. Also I am a writer: and therefore feel rather strongly about people who think they have a right to appropriate other people's writings for their own purposes. Ginmar has never discussed this with me: I'm writing from my own POV as a writer who finds your cavalier attitude to the rules of courtesy and the law of copyright extremely disturbing, and as a friend of Ginmar's, of course, who is disappointed that because of your cavalier attitude, Ginmar's journal has gone friends-only.

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

None taken. I guess if you want to be sued so badly, it would be silly of you to acknowledge you ought to have apologised days ago. I don't understand why you'd want to be sued that badly, but then I'm just an ordinary person who prefers to play by the rules, apologise when I'm in the wrong, and avoid trouble of the kind you actively seek out.

lemmie get this straight...

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?

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.

Sweet jesus what a drama whore. I hope she makes it home safe so she can loose that particular part of her celeberty.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

If you quote someone else's post whole and entire (that is, clearly exceeding "fair use"), LJ Abuse will take your post down if the person who posted it complains, and may suspend your journal while they investigate. I knew that - I'm surprised you didn't. One way to avoid this is to ask (politely) if you may quote from that person's journal, and make clear that you have done so with permission.

But of course, if your intent in quoting the post whole is to get to criticise the writer without actually having to deal with the writer's comments back - politeness begets politeness, rudeness begets rudeness - well, I can understand why you didn't notify ginmar as you claimed you were going to, because obviously once ginmar found out, she had a right to go to LJ Abuse - but if you didn't tell her, you were likely to have a free month or so to do as you liked before she found out. And you got away with it, so - what are you complaining about again?

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.

I made a public comment in her post that quoted Ian's, providing a link to my post.

...which would have done not a lot of good if she wasn't getting her e-mail notifications, would it?

I believe I also sent her an email, but it's been long enough that I can no longer remember.

If you're planning to breach copyright so extensively, you really need to wait for the owner's permission - rather than just casually do it and expect to get away with it.

It would have been perfectly acceptable to link to the post and tear it to pieces - fairly stupid, since basically you would be ranting at someone for not posting about what you want them to post about in their own journal, but perfectly legally acceptable.

It's not acceptable to take what someone else has written, and without their consent, publish it elsewhere. LJ Abuse takes a dim view of it. So do most writers. I am unsurprised that ginmar is taking the trouble to legally defend her work against your predations: I am surprised, however, that someone as caring and trouble as you feels that it's appropriate to put a soldier in a war zone to that amount of inconvenience. What exactly do you gain that's worth causing Ginmar that amount of trouble to defend her legal rights? She'll be coming home to the US where you can fight it out on equal terms in - hopefully - a few months. Why do you feel the need to attack her now, when the playing-field is not level?

Just drop it. You edited her writing out of your post: leave it at that and send her an e-mail to tell her you won't be using her work again. You were in the wrong in the first place: just acknowledge that, point out that you've stopped doing it, and let it go.

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.

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?

Utterly certain? No. Certain that, in moral terms, Cheshyre is in the wrong, yes. Certainly people quote and link on livejournal all the time. But the law is that people own what they write, and the standard courteous convention is that if you want to use someone else's writing for your own purposes, as Cheshyre evidently did with Ginmar, you are on legally shaky ground - and you are unquestionably in the wrong, both morally and as a matter of simple politeness, if the writer tells you "Don't use my writing like that" (as Ginmar did) but you ignore them.

Cheshyre is evidently feeling like a victim. But she's the one in the wrong: having being told her use of Ginmar's writing is unwelcome to Ginmar, she ought simply to take it down (and not wait for LJ Abuse to force her to do it, but that's water under the bridge) and apologise to Ginmar.

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?

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."

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.

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.)

Yep, I've read it. 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. She didn't bother to get Ginmar's consent, and on receiving that comment, she knew she didn't have Ginmar's consent - that she was publishing it against Ginmar's will.

That is the basic clearcut discourtesy that I was referring to. 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.

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

So have I. In fact, I've disagreed with her two or three times. But she's never called me a hypocrite - probably because I've always been completely upfront about how and why I disagree with her.

I note that some people simply can't stand Ginmar's very direct style of communication. Others object to what she writes about on her own journal. (This whole row started because Cheshyre objected to Ginmar not paying enough attention to what Cheshyre wanted Ginmar to write about, as I recall.) Me, I don't have that problem. I disagree with Ginmar, I say so. I don't feel the need to make massive posts on my journal explaining how I'm right and she's wrong, nor do I feel the need to bitch about her behind her back. As a result, my experience with Ginmar has been tempestuous sometimes, but on the whole, pretty damn good.

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.

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, and 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 is the one in the wrong. So, Cheshyre is the one who now has to back down - she's the one who filed the countercomplaint.

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

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? Cheshyre has been doing nothing but complain about having to take down Ginmar's writing from her journal ever since, and has actually filed a countercomplaint about it.

"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.

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.

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

Oh, do. Especially you should quote the person who pointed out "I couldn't believe the number of people who overlooked the sentence that went something like 'Leaving aside women who have physical problems...'" - which made a complete nonsense of all your complaints.

Disgusted

OMG, I can't believe it, you just quoted from a locked post! Shouldn't someone report you to Lj Abuse?

Re: Disgusted

Unlike Cheshyre, I got permission from Ginmar. See what difference that makes? No?

What Is Proactol

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.