Hmm, if the lawyers are $500 an hour, how much you chargin’? 
Don’t get me wrong, I agree the ban was warranted. I just don’t like that glowforge has now set a precedent of not telling the banned what exactly broke the rule, just that a rule was broken.
That is the reason for his first suspension. We’re not talking about that. He broke a rule in the past and was temporarily suspended for it. That’s a given. Now they say he broke a rule a second time, resulting in a permanent suspension. The question at hand is what he did to result in that second suspension and why jbmanning5 didn’t just break the same rule (“you agree not to violate, or encourage others to violate, any right of a third party”).
If he was suspended for making snarky references, then they should not have invoked the IP rights rule. You’re basically saying it’s ok for jbmanning5 to break the rule because he’s more likable. Which seems to be agreeing with me that the rules are not being applied objectively.
1 Like
It doesn’t seem like there’s any big unanswered question here though, so I don’t think it sets some big precedent. When someone correctly predicts the reaction to what they are going to say, I don’t think they are shocked when it happens. (For example, if you think the ban was warranted, then I’m guessing you know what the ban was for, right? 
)
While the circular debates have been entertaining, I think it’s kinda run it’s course and I’m done. I do appreciate everyone’s passion though and I wouldn’t expect any less from the forum. Personal responsibility, loyalty and a sense of fairness are all very good things.
4 Likes
No I’m not. I’m saying it was repeated violations that he likely got booted for - starting with the very serious posting of someone else’s work on a public site. Jbmanning hasn’t done that. If Palmer had just been a pita he most likely would still be here - lots of us are. I believe it was the initial theft and then the subsequent taunting post that invoked the repeated bad behavior clause.
Many of us are objectionable but only one was caught stealing and then later poked the bear proving that the initial banishment did not result in repentance. We also don’t have a clue as to what the conditions if his first return we’re predicated on. Perhaps he was given a red line that he decided to cross - which seems consistent with his “I’ll probably be banned” comment.
1 Like
That is not a claim that I made. Please respect the community guidelines, particularly “remember to criticize ideas, not people”.
I actually really dislike arguing. This thread is stressing me out and I want to let it go… I was on my way to bed and foolishly decided to come back and post something along the lines of “I’m sorry I got into a bad mood”, but I got pulled in again. The replies here just seem so illogical to me that letting them stand is maddening. You’re telling me to read Dan’s statement again does not change the facts. I have read it. He discusses two hypothetical scenarios that only add to the confusion because neither of them match what happened here:
The apparent context was that @palmercr said “Actually the opposite is true” in response to “there’s no way to download the catalog files”, which was in the context of an innocent question, “I can’t figure out how to save the file in inkscape to personalize it. Is that possible and how is it done?” They were not asking how to steal IP, they were asking how to use what they understood to be a feature of the product. You and Dan seem to be saying that there is a required context test for violating rule 2.8.4. Since nobody in that thread was asking how to steal anything, it seems like the context test was not met.
I still don’t understand what @palmercr did to violate rule 2.8.4 a second time. I don’t see how applying a fair standard would mean that what he posted in the “Can you edit catalog file” thread was any more “encouragement” than what has been posted by others. Perhaps there were other posts, or PMs, that we’re not seeing, that went further. Or perhaps it’s that the rules are applied more strictly to people who are a general nuisance.
I don’t think I can possibly say what is bothering me any more clearly, and I ran out of anything useful to add a long time ago, so I’ll wrap it up and promise not to post any more on this thread. Tomorrow I will use my Glowforge to make something nice and share a picture of it. And maybe it will stop raining so I can use my barbecue.
7 Likes
The thing is, though, that happens all the time here. A quick browse through the forum will yield photos of pieces people have engraved that infringe on all manner of intellectual property. I know you’re aware of this, because you’ve clicked the “like” button on a lot of them.
I’m no $500/hour lawyer, but as near as I can tell, it’s a violation of the terms of service just to print a TARDIS bookmark or a Jimi Hendrix photo. It seems like Glowforge would be just as within its rights to shut off those users’ access to the cloud software as it was to ban a user on the forum. I feel like that should bother some people more than it seems to.
The difference in this case is that the user was describing – kind of obliquely – how the Glowforge software works, something likely to be of general interest to anybody who would be on the forum. It seems like it would be of particular interest to anyone who is considering putting something in the catalog. It seems quite a bit more valuable as information than hey-look-at-my-Captain-Kirk-drink-coasters, which you can post with impunity even though it would seem to be at least as much of a violation of the TOS.
3 Likes
Palmer wasn’t encouraging anybody to violate intellectual property. He merely repeated the well known fact that the file was already on the user’s computer. A file which contained a design the poster already had a right to use and customize.
I’ve provided exactly the same information as Palmer, including links to detailed instructions, yet I haven’t received even as much as a “Hey, stop that!”
By helping others, @jules has directly assisted community members commit massive amounts of IP theft (in many cases, providing direct instructions for prepping obviously copyrighted material), but no one flags those posts and she hasn’t been banned (nor should she be, in my opinion - and I’m not picking on her, only providing an example).
The only obvious difference is the tact of the messenger, and you can hardly deny that, @dan.
And, if you are going to stick to this ridiculous assertion, then I expect that Glowforge’s moderators are going to have their work cut out for them as there are literally THOUSANDS of posts on this forum where your most beloved customers are going out of their way to help others actively violate the IP rights of third parties.
Additionally, there are THOUSANDS of posts on here of people unlawfully using other’s IP to make products on their Glowforge. In fact, Glowforge themselves have directly benefited from this as part of the #whatmadethis campaign. Hundreds of those posts included blatant violations of copyright.
@dan, your double standard on here is revolting, and indefensible.
(PS: I hope your $500/hr lawyers have already told you that once you start moderating, you better moderate it all or you become responsible for the third party content that you leave in place)
And, with that, I’ll return to my non-participating ways.
EDIT: After I’ve finished saying what I have to say on this topic.
7 Likes
Maybe. Copyright has a fair-use exclusion for personal use (as well as others like use in education and satire). People using other work for resale are commonly reminded of the issue. People who discuss plans to do that are reminded of it. Discussions of the Creative Commons license are pretty robust. Intent matters. In this case with the comment’s preface, the intent was clear - just another example if “yeah this is wrong but nudge nudge wink wink” behavior that so many in society embrace.
In this case, there is a non-violating method to modify the files by adding your own artwork via methods in the GFUI. I’ve used them. They’re easier to do than spelunking your hard drive for the source file. So telling someone they can be modified using the add artwork feature does not cause an issue. That comment would not have raised an eyebrow.
It seems this issue is one of those of polarization. One side doesn’t understand why the other side doesn’t see things in the same clear light they do. I expect like much of today’s societal discourse no one is changing any minds and are not likely to do so. The good thing is forum participation is optional - if it doesn’t provide value in excess of the negatives, it’s easy never to open the browser site again.
2 Likes
Source please. As far as I am aware, no such exception exists that permits you to take someone else’s IP, IP that you have no other rights to, and use it for yourself.
But, wait… Didn’t you just say copyright has a fair use exception that allows you to make your own personal copies?
Your own earlier argument contradicts this argument. Under your own claim, the user has a right to make a personal use copy of whatever they want, so any personal use would be “non-infringing”. No?
Yes, I have trouble understanding some people’s views on this as they can be completely self-contradicting and self-suiting.
1 Like
I initially read this with some amount of incredulity but then I realized that the seminal case in this space may have preceded your birth as you might not be old enough to remember it like some of us graybeards.
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
Of course there have been thousands of cases and articles since then (& before as well) but a quick Google will reveal a wonder of personal riggts that alter what most people believe about copyright as the law tries to balance creator & societal interests.
1 Like
“making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting” is not the same as making a coaster with a Harley Davidson logo to stick your coffee table.
Harley Davidson licenses others to put their logo on products, including coasters. Engraving their logo on your own coaster for your own use is depriving HD of the proceeds from the use of their logo. It is theft, and it is illegal.
SPECIFICALLY: Find me a source that says this is legal. (HINT: You won’t.)
And again, your positions contradict themselves:
- You are saying people can use whatever copyrighted stuff they want as long as it is for personal use.
- But you are also saying that Palmer was encouraging violation of GF’s IP because he suggested someone could modify the design for their own personal use, but outside of the GFUI.
By your own statements, Palmer should be completely vindicated because he was only telling someone how to do something that you believe they already have a right to do.
On that point, if you can see it, we agree.
The difference between us here is WHY we believe the person already had the right to do what they wanted to do.
My view is that the user already had a right to use the design because that right was granted to them by GF themselves.
The fact they want to modify the design outside of the GFUI, but still use it on the Glowforge, is perfectly OK. There are no licensing or contractual restrictions in the GF TOS that prohibits it (at least, that I can find).
I resemble that remark.
5 Likes
Not about Palmer because I still don’t think we know why he was cut…
But copyright, I’m no lawyer but this is a pretty simple primer:
1 Like
From the link:
“You cannot, however, simply print the image for personal or decorative uses, as this is a form of theft.”
emphasis in original
1 Like
What is this word, “non-participating”? I do not think it means what you think it means.
2 Likes
I reserve the right to modify my interpretation of that term as I see fit. 
1 Like
Something that might help to settle everyone (because I really do hate to see all this angst) is to go and read the TOS if you haven’t.
Glowforge isn’t planning to police IP for infractions of all intellectual property, they have neither the right nor the responsibility to do that. So people who have made “a mouse” for the Christmas tree aren’t going to have the fires of hell rain down on their heads. But they will protect the Catalog and contents that they are responsible for. It’s written that way in the TOS that we agree to.
And they’re denying Forum posting access, not suing anybody. Fairly mild sort of control really. Even the individual affected is amused by it and not upset, according to your earlier words @scott.wiederhold …why get upset if he doesn’t care?
I hate getting into IP issues, it always leaves everyone angry. Everybody has got an opinion about what “should” be and all we can do is interpret them the best we can, but it’s still under development world-wide, so no one is right, and no one knows what to do.
In the absence of a fixed set of guidelines, each individual company has to set the rules for themselves, and that is what Glowforge has done. It’s their interpretation of what they want to see happen on the forum that they pay for, so they get to set the rules here.
We’re not going to live to see a final set of rules for dealing with IP, it’s going to change as media access changes, for all of our lives, and our children’s lives and their children’s lives. So getting too out of whack about it is a real waste of energy that could be used to create content of our own.
I hate IP issues. 
1 Like
As anyone who follows the U.S. Supreme Court might notice, there is rarely a unanimous ruling on any case of significant public interest.
Even if everyone here goes back to school and gets a law degree, prepare for half of the folks to disagree.
8 Likes
I don’t necessarily want to be the one to test it in court, but I think a case could be made that transforming an image into a lasered piece for one’s own use and enjoyment falls under the definition and intent of “fair use.” It’s transformative, and it’s a limited use of the IP.
A hospital I used to work for once created an in-house educational PowerPoint on integrity in the workplace, and made it mandatory that all employees view it and complete a post-test. The PowerPoint was illustrated using Disney cartoons. 
1 Like
He isn’t mad at all. In fact, he’s quite amused by the whole thing.
The only real concern is that under the TOS, GF can not only deny you access to the forum, but also access to the service.
So, you could lose the ability to use your GF if you don’t play along.
For me, its more about the ethics of this company. Specifically, their loose ways with other’s IP (i.e. Open Source, which they still are not fully complying with), and their quick and draconian responses to anything that even whiffs of infringing on their’s (even when, as in this case, it doesn’t).
1 Like