Pro gun website shut down because of copyright lawsuit

AnderJaspo · Jul 28, 2010

"BREAKING: “The Armed Citizen” Closes – Site Named in Infringement Suit"
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

I don't often write on forums. I hope this hasn't already been posted elsewhere on here or that I'm not violating this rule:

"NO SPAMMING: Links to spam/membership sites not related directly to firearms are NOT allowed under any circumstances! It is also considered spamming to post the same thread (even valid ones) to multiple forums."

But if it happened to these guys, it could happen to other pro 2A sites. This really sucks. Maybe there are people on here that could help or something?

simmonsjoe · Jul 28, 2010

Thanks for the heads up.

click the above link for a more detailed explanation.

jeeper1 · Jul 28, 2010

Here is a news article relevant to the original post. It seems that some jerk is just doing it for the money.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/copyright-trolling-for-dollars/

Batousaii · Jul 28, 2010

Copyright Infringement

~ From what I understand, they are hammering this website for full "cut - paste" issues regarding their stories and articles. Whereas some people might personally appreciate not having to click a link, and would rather just open their friendly, trusted and local forum site, it appears as if that’s not such a good idea from a legal standpoint.
~ To be safe, I’d limit article pastes to little hightligted paragraph, and then link to the full story.

~ Example:
"The suit, reportedly filed in US District Court on July 20th, alleges that The Armed Citizen and its owners “willfully copied” and infringed on original source content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal." -Thearmedcitizen
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

- This could potentially save us a lot of grief. Once the court hashes it out, we will know where that stands.

Bat

Dreamer · Jul 28, 2010

One thing thats not really being touched on in thsi story by the MSM is who owned and operated that website. One of the owners is Clayton Cramer.

Cramer wrote "The Racist Roots of Gun Control", an inredibly detailed, researched, and footnoted article outlining how almost every "gun control" law ever enacted in the US was based on disarming minorities and the poor. This article is waking a LOT of people up in cities like Chicago, DC, and Baltimore to the TRUE agenda behind groups like VPC and Brady...

Cramer also was the guy responsible for completely discrediting Michael Bellesiles book "Arming America: the Origins of a National Gun Culture". This uncovering and refuting Bellesile's fraudulent "scholarship" resulted in Bellesiles having his Bancroft Prize revoked and withdrawn (The ONLY time Columbia University has EVER done that), and forced Bellesiles to resign in disgrace from Emory University.

Clayton Cramer is a front-line warrior in the battle of information when it comes to Second Amendment Rights. His research, articles and appearences have put him on the top of the anti-gun lobby's "dirty tricks hit list".

It was just a matter of time before Cramer became a target of this sort of harassment, demonization, and borderline illegal censorship.

This is just the first volley, folks.

They know they can't take our guns, so now they are going to try and destroy the First Amendment, through media manipulation, intimidation, judicial activism and outright fraud.

This is the last violent thrashings of an injured, dying beast. We've got them acting in desperation, folks. This is the time to act with even more resolve, focus, and intensity. CAll your elected representatives. Call in to radio talk shows. Talk to people on the street.

Information IS power. And we hold all the "cards of truth".

The "anti's" are just bluffing, and all they have is a handful of lies and fear...

jt59 · Jul 28, 2010

How they do it

Have a read through this....I pulled the link off of the site of the folks that launched the lawsuit.

It gives some good insight as to just how little the internet and our use is actually protected....I just can't decide if this is really good (anti-spam) or really bad......very big brother.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/pulse-marketing-yahoo-warrant.pdf

Dreamer said:
One thing thats not really being touched on in thsi story by the MSM is who owned and operated that website. One of the owners is Clayton Cramer.

Cramer wrote "The Racist Roots of Gun Control", an inredibly detailed, researched, and footnoted article outlining how almost every "gun control" law ever enacted in the US was based on disarming minorities and the poor. This article is waking a LOT of people up in cities like Chicago, DC, and Baltimore to the TRUE agenda behind groups like VPC and Brady...

Cramer also was the guy responsible for completely discrediting Michael Bellesiles book "Arming America: the Origins of a National Gun Culture". This uncovering and refuting Bellesile's fraudulent "scholarship" resulted in Bellesiles having his Bancroft Prize revoked and withdrawn (The ONLY time Columbia University has EVER done that), and forced Bellesiles to resign in disgrace from Emory University.

Clayton Cramer is a front-line warrior in the battle of information when it comes to Second Amendment Rights. His research, articles and appearences have put him on the top of the anti-gun lobby's "dirty tricks hit list".

It was just a matter of time before Cramer became a target of this sort of harassment, demonization, and borderline illegal censorship.

This is just the first volley, folks.

They know they can't take our guns, so now they are going to try and destroy the First Amendment, through media manipulation, intimidation, judicial activism and outright fraud.

This is the last violent thrashings of an injured, dying beast. We've got them acting in desperation, folks. This is the time to act with even more resolve, focus, and intensity. CAll your elected representatives. Call in to radio talk shows. Talk to people on the street.

Information IS power. And we hold all the "cards of truth".

The "anti's" are just bluffing, and all they have is a handful of lies and fear...

VAopencarry · Jul 28, 2010

Gun blogs are NOT being targeted. This group has also filed suit against a host of other websites some could even be considered 'left' websites. Righthaven LLC is just some scum sucking lawyers who look for infringed work of the LVRJ then obtain the copyright and file suit.

eye95 · Jul 28, 2010

VAopencarry said:
Gun blogs are NOT being targeted. This group has also filed suit against a host of other websites some could even be considered 'left' websites. Righthaven LLC is just some scum sucking lawyers who look for infringed work of the LVRJ then obtain the copyright and file suit.

Curious. What other sites?

Jack House · Jul 29, 2010

Looks to me like they don't have much of a case. I didn't do much snooping, and most of what I know regarding copyright law has more to do with things like Youtube. But I'd say that The Armed Citizen has a good chance.

VAopencarry · Jul 29, 2010

eye95 said:
Curious. What other sites?

Gathered from a few sources, the main one being lasvegassun.com

There are 81 of these suits, a few other victims are:

Anthony Fiato, mobster turned Fed informant.
NORML- has been settled out of court for $2,xxx.
5-6 gambling sites
a few 'green' websites.
bikernews.net
Freaks Sports & Gambling Forum
luxejewelryblogs.com
inside-real-estate.com/joeherrera
The Independent Political Report and Charles C. Martin
Assured Lender Services Inc.
Americans for Democratic Action
FreeRepublic.com
strangerthanfiction.org
pa-announcer.blogspot.com

eye95 · Jul 29, 2010

Jack House said:
Looks to me like they don't have much of a case. I didn't do much snooping, and most of what I know regarding copyright law has more to do with things like Youtube. But I'd say that The Armed Citizen has a good chance.

I think they have an excellent case against any site that has pasted copyrighted content (video or printed word), without making some attempt to follow fair use rules. Fair use would not include copying the content of entire pieces to another location, so that people viewing the content can bypass the copyright holders' methods of presenting the content, methods usually designed to profit from the presentation of that content.

I have mentioned before the hazards of this site allowing the cut-and-paste of full articles. It puts the very existence of the site at risk. This lawsuit just represents one copyright holder finally doing what has been possible all along--despite that possibility generally being ignored.

arentol · Jul 29, 2010

eye95 said:
I think they have an excellent case against any site that has pasted copyrighted content (video or printed word), without making some attempt to follow fair use rules. Fair use would not include copying the content of entire pieces to another location, so that people viewing the content can bypass the copyright holders' methods of presenting the content, methods usually designed to profit from the presentation of that content.

I have mentioned before the hazards of this site allowing the cut-and-paste of full articles. It puts the very existence of the site at risk. This lawsuit just represents one copyright holder finally doing what has been possible all along--despite that possibility generally being ignored.

Yeah, but I would hazard a guess that virtually all of these sites are being sued for user-generated content. Such suits are without merit unless the copyright holder requests the offending content be removed and the site owner fails to do so. These guys are relying on it being cheaper for the sites they sue to settle than to fight back even though they would almost all win if they did fight back.

eye95 · Jul 29, 2010

arentol said:
Yeah, but I would hazard a guess that virtually all of these sites are being sued for user-generated content. Such suits are without merit unless the copyright holder requests the offending content be removed and the site owner fails to do so. These guys are relying on it being cheaper for the sites they sue to settle than to fight back even though they would almost all win if they did fight back.

Typical practice is to request that the content be removed and to take legal action if it is not. However, copyright infringement is actionable after only on instance and without warning. People do not have to warn others not to steal. And, copyright infringement is theft--theft of intellectual property.

IANAL, the above comes from years of official warnings not to infringe on copyrights in the development of teaching materials (and warnings about the consequences therefor).

Jonesy · Aug 2, 2010

eye95 said:
Fair use would not include copying the content of entire pieces to another location, so that people viewing the content can bypass the copyright holders' methods of presenting the content, methods usually designed to profit from the presentation of that content.

This is incorrect, fair use often includes copying an entire work to another location. As an example, check out one of my favorite conservative websites, http://hotair.com/. They continually post full video clips from Fox News and many other sources. These are almost certainly fair use, because of the accompanying discussion and criticism. It sounds like this site simply posted lots of articles without criticism or other factors that would help for fair use purposes. Ignorance of the law is not a defense.

arentol · Aug 3, 2010

eye95 said:
Typical practice is to request that the content be removed and to take legal action if it is not. However, copyright infringement is actionable after only on instance and without warning. People do not have to warn others not to steal. And, copyright infringement is theft--theft of intellectual property.

IANAL, the above comes from years of official warnings not to infringe on copyrights in the development of teaching materials (and warnings about the consequences therefor).

Yes it is actionable after only one instance, against the INFRINGING PARTY. The infringing party is the person that POSTED IT, not the person that HOSTED IT. The person that hosted it is protected under DMCA and is only held liable if the copyright holder asks them to remove the copyrighted data and they fail to do so.

However, if a moderator or someone else that works for the site is the one that posted it, then the site is on the hook immediately.

Dreamer · Aug 3, 2010

When I was in high school, we used to have a thing in Social Studies class called "current events", where once a week, we would all have to bring a newspaper clipping (or a copy of one) into class and discuss it. At the end of the semester, we handing in a notebook with all our clippings, and short essays on eash story we'd presented.

Under this new interpretation of "fair use", would this no longer be legal? Sure this was before "cut and paste" on computers, but we were LITERALLY cutting and pasting entire news articles, for distribution through a non-approved method.

I was one of those precocious kids who wasn't happy with the local news papers, so I would go to the library and xerox articles from other bigger papers like the Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Post, or even the occasional British paper.

If kids did this today, cutting and pasting articles from online sources, and then printing them out at home to put in a folder, or making a PDF to hand in to a teacher, would this be a violation under this new interpretation of what is and is not "fair use"?

The idea that a media outlet can somehow control how people discuss, analyze, or collate their articles in the realms of education, public discourse, or grass roots activism is treading DANGEROUSLY close to censorship.

I'm all for copyright law. As a graphic designer, the rights of ownership of original works are my bread and butter. But the idea that I could sue someone because they copied my work to some internet forum SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of discussion, analysis, or as a part of public discourse is patently absurd...

Jonesy · Aug 5, 2010

Dreamer said:
When I was in high school, we used to have a thing in Social Studies class called "current events", where once a week, we would all have to bring a newspaper clipping (or a copy of one) into class and discuss it. At the end of the semester, we handing in a notebook with all our clippings, and short essays on eash story we'd presented.

Under this new interpretation of "fair use", would this no longer be legal? Sure this was before "cut and paste" on computers, but we were LITERALLY cutting and pasting entire news articles, for distribution through a non-approved method.

I was one of those precocious kids who wasn't happy with the local news papers, so I would go to the library and xerox articles from other bigger papers like the Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Post, or even the occasional British paper.

If kids did this today, cutting and pasting articles from online sources, and then printing them out at home to put in a folder, or making a PDF to hand in to a teacher, would this be a violation under this new interpretation of what is and is not "fair use"?

The idea that a media outlet can somehow control how people discuss, analyze, or collate their articles in the realms of education, public discourse, or grass roots activism is treading DANGEROUSLY close to censorship.

I'm all for copyright law. As a graphic designer, the rights of ownership of original works are my bread and butter. But the idea that I could sue someone because they copied my work to some internet forum SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of discussion, analysis, or as a part of public discourse is patently absurd...

There is no "new interpretation" of fair use. Fair use is governed by 17 US Code Sec. 107, and the standards developed by the federal courts. Use clippings from newspapers with discussions and essays would most likely be considered fair use due the the comments and criticism. Fair use if often hard to determine, because there is some subjectiveness.

The statute sets out four factors in determining fair use as follows:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Publishing entire works with no factors weighing in favor of fair use will be infringement: Example: Entire publications of the Church of Scientology were posted on the Internet by several individuals without Church permission. Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. (Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1569 (E.D. Va. 1996).)

The greater a percentage of a work that is used, the more fair use factors you need to balance the use.

TFred · Aug 9, 2010

Here's an article with an update on this debacle. Looks like the guys over at The Armed Citizen are starting to fight back. As if we should be surprised...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/09/websites-bloggers-make-moves-avoid-righthaven-laws/

TFred

heresyourdipstickjimmy · Aug 24, 2010

Batousaii said:
~ From what I understand, they are hammering this website for full "cut - paste" issues regarding their stories and articles. Whereas some people might personally appreciate not having to click a link, and would rather just open their friendly, trusted and local forum site, it appears as if that’s not such a good idea from a legal standpoint.
~ To be safe, I’d limit article pastes to little hightligted paragraph, and then link to the full story.

~ Example:
"The suit, reportedly filed in US District Court on July 20th, alleges that The Armed Citizen and its owners “willfully copied” and infringed on original source content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal." -Thearmedcitizen
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

- This could potentially save us a lot of grief. Once the court hashes it out, we will know where that stands.

Bat

There's a second part to this problem. These media-ites don't like to get caught altering an article after it was originally released. Rather than print a retraction and/or correction they merely go in and alter the original to suit their needs. It's not always the case, but I've seen this happen before. It's part of why folks started cut and paste wars with the media, someone would post a link and comment on the article only to find out others had done the same and all of the sudden the media entity responsible had altered the original article.

Now if some of those defendants could just find those necessary alterations they might have more ground on a defense. It's just another Mickey D's spilled coffee lawsuit in my opinion. Especially since in the education world anyone can use material without the author's permission as long as they make the proper citation. Same should be said for the web. If it's there and the citation is provided nothing should be said.

BTW, the same thing was done by the White House in 2008 over the McCain and Obama issues. The WH admitted they intentionally controlled the media, had credentials denied access, and even threatened folks with lawsuits over stuff like this.

since9 · Aug 30, 2010

Batousaii said:
~ From what I understand, they are hammering this website for full "cut - paste" issues regarding their stories and articles. Whereas some people might personally appreciate not having to click a link, and would rather just open their friendly, trusted and local forum site, it appears as if that’s not such a good idea from a legal standpoint.
~ To be safe, I’d limit article pastes to little hightligted paragraph, and then link to the full story.

~ Example:
"The suit, reportedly filed in US District Court on July 20th, alleges that The Armed Citizen and its owners “willfully copied” and infringed on original source content from the Las Vegas Review-Journal." -Thearmedcitizen
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

- This could potentially save us a lot of grief. Once the court hashes it out, we will know where that stands.

Bat

I've been a message forum admin or mod since 1985, about 25 years now, so I am very familiar with these issues.

Generally speaking, snippets with links to source material are fine, while broad expanses of text are not. I think the "line in the sand" is quite broad, so breaching it isn't a very smart idea, while erring on the side of caution is best.

Pro gun website shut down because of copyright lawsuit

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran