ALL material is copyrighted. We've already had that discussion. The specific law has also been cited. Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

That is incorrect, the owner is responsible.

You have no idea what your talking about.

Everyone trying to be a lawyer isn't helping the member. I, therefore, respectfully bow out of the conversation. I do hope the member will consult qualified legal counsel.

And I believe the best answer was that you should seek legal counsel as none of us are attorneys. :)

Thats correct Lynne, in the OP's original post & his related issue to his site being copied, his best bet is an attorney.

The issue related to a sites content & what the end user posts on a site, is totally incorrect by the poster who states that the owner is NOT responsible, as its a simple point, if i post a thread/post with a warez link to a file, vbulletin will get the dmca threat, not me, it is the owners responsibility to remove it & if its not, the owner gets sued, not the end user who posted it.

Thats why this statement is incorrect:

Well, actually ... but I digress. This isn't helping the member.

Are you a lawyer? I notice you implied it but didn't actually say so.

Indeed I am.

--------------- Added [DATE]1350769636[/DATE] at [TIME]1350769636[/TIME] ---------------

You may wish to familiarize yourself with the following, Title II Of The DMCA:

TITLE II: ONLINE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT LIABILITY LIMITATION
Title II of the DMCA adds a new section 512 to the Copyright Act3 to create
four new limitations on liability for copyright infringement by online service providers.

The limitations are based on the following four categories of conduct by a service
provider:
1. Transitory communications;
2. System caching;
3. Storage of information on systems or networks at direction of users;
and
4. Information location tools.

New section 512 also includes special rules concerning the application of these
limitations to nonprofit educational institutions.

The failure of a service provider to qualify for any of the limitations in section
512 does not necessarily make it liable for copyright infringement. The copyright
owner must still demonstrate that the provider has infringed, and the provider may still
avail itself of any of the defenses, such as fair use, that are available to copyright
defendants generally. (Section 512(l)).

Limitation for Information Residing on Systems or Networks at the
Direction of Users
Section 512(c) limits the liability of service providers for infringing material on
websites (or other information repositories) hosted on their systems. It applies to
storage at the direction of a user. In order to be eligible for the limitation, the
following conditions must be met:
! The provider must not have the requisite level of knowledge of the
infringing activity, as described below.
! If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity,
it must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the
infringing activity.
! Upon receiving proper notification of claimed infringement, the
provider must expeditiously take down or block access to the material.

lol, it's OK, I believe you. I was just curious because you didn't quite say that in the previous post.

Well, you're full of malarkey and you didn't answer my earlier challenge:You would get NO WHERE because you have NO rights to what you post on someone else's PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Let's say you painted a mural on the side of my house, then tried to claim copyright? C'mon now. The Mural is MINE the same way the wall itself is MINE.

You have NO RIGHTS regarding what you post on someone else's site!

How would you like, PROVE it was you who posted the content in question? Just for starters.

--------------- Added [DATE]1350774641[/DATE] at [TIME]1350774641[/TIME] ---------------

To the OP:

I have this statement in my terms of service and have had for 11 years, you may or may not wish to add it or something very much like it as well: