discord ban appeal (again)

↩  Miasmus We're not willing to go back months and months. If something has happened within the last 72 hours then it's fair to report it, but anything beyond that and it's nothing more than doing it out of spite.

For section 1 offences such as this the final decision sits with me and ATLAS's corporate leadership team. We can't say if you have broken the law because we are not a judge, but we can make the decision that in our judgement it's likely you would be deemed to be breaking the law, which is the case here.

↩ @'Ryan' in the case i said i literally reported it and got shit on by the person i reported it to. Albeit he was having a bad day but my point stands. My point here being that the rules get enforced differently based on who you go to. One mod bans for something another mod mutes for. Shit like this begins to happen where someone gets banned for something that they were told (I presume based on the fact they got unbanned) was fine to do..

Quote

↩  Miasmus Since no one here is a judge, who can decide if I reallly broke the law? Copyright isn't exactly black and white, and until thats decided, the ban seems unjustified if the only reasoning is that a moderator thinks I broke the law.

Bans for breaking the law are usually subjective anyway. It's so that we're not liable in the case you have broken the law.

↩  Luke It's sorta what happens when we're all human... People will make their own judgements.

↩ @'Ryan' and does that make it impossible to communicate and say 'ban for this, mute for this, warn for this'?

↩  Luke We already have guidance on the discord rules for what lines up with what. Like here, it's a section 1 offence which means unless they can prove they didn't do what they are accused of, it's an indef ban.

↩  Miasmus Ultimately yes, that's why I've pinnged Nick as I'd like his input as he banned you and will have seen what you posted.

The showing of a film to be viewed as entertainment even if hosted by an educational group or an individual, it doesn't not matter how the setting is, this is under general law considered not to be fair use, and will require a PPR request to be obtained before showing such work.

Speeding up a movie is called "Derivative Work" -

(17 U.S.C. § 101) is called a Derivative Work. The original copyright owner typically has exclusive rights to “prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work

(17 U.S.C. § 106(2)). It is considered copyright infringement to "make" or sell derivative works without permission from the original owner, which is where licenses typically come into play.

The usage of fair use is to credit the content's owner while using it for criticism, news reporting, teaching, and or research which you don't fall under any of those categories thus a violation of copyrighted material since its a well-known movie and its illegal to show without any license or permission from the owner of the material.

Those who violated the copyright laws in the past couple of months are pardoned as a failure of the community to report such things, saying you "didn't know it was a violation" is your fault, no one else's, our rules are clear and it shows how some of us even in the admin team doesn't understand or care to understand our rules.

Miasmus's opinion is subjective while the laws state is a clear objective fact, on miasmus's previous application, I have made it clear that we take law and platform violations very seriously and that was one of the last cases of copyright violation ban appeals to be issued a pardon. You knew what you were doing, I knew what you were doing, it not gonna make your case any better, accept the state of law, and move on.