Hello,
Thank you. You have explained it very nicely.
That's why I found this identity thief's accusations directed at you and us as unfounded.
This user copied the name and the content of some blogger without permission in order to deceive the community that is that person and profit from it. I am sure that it is illegal in any US state.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
@holovision raised great points, but keep in mind, this is an international website, not just a US one
Courts sometimes rule in ways we don't expect, i.e. if @missbella argued she was a fan account, like @themarkymark's, I don't know what the ruling would be
CONTINUED..
Posted via D.Buzz
While it's true that courts can sometimes make what sometimes seems "surprising" rulings I don't think that's a reason to be timid. Of ten times those "surprise" ruling are made in lower courts that get overturned. Even for higher courts the "surprise" rulings can be targeted toward a very specific set of circumstances that don't otherwise affect the law as a whole.
One of the reasons laws are published is so citizens can read them and know what the law is. Courts go by the written law and rely on precedent. One reason lawyers refer to previous rulings is because it can show a mindset that there was reliance on previous understanding of what the law was when an action was taken.
I understand you @hivewatchers + @holovision, just want to be careful since like I said, this is an international website, we aren't lawyers (as far as I know) & some countries might have stronger libel laws than copyright laws
#DecentralizedBlacklists #VotingSystem
Posted via D.Buzz
Let say that you are creating some content as a blogger, vlogger, artist, etc.
Would you like the fans that you have never heard of effortlessly just copying and pasting all your creations on their websites or blogs and earning from it, without your permission and knowledge? :-)
The issue is, she didn't re-upload the video, she posted a link to the original author
So in a way, she was actually promoting the author's work
The problem is, she used the username @missbella which I DON'T agree with at all.. but is it illegal?
I.e. @themarkymark
Posted via D.Buzz
If we allow the argument of "promoting" than what's to stop another person from promoting that Chinese ASMR vlogger? I am not going to argue slippery slope fallacy but how does low quality posts that can be made in less than a minute "promoting" someone help encourage quailty content in the Hive community; especially if two or three are "promoting" the same person with no association to the person they are promoting?
I agree with @hivewatchers action of downvoting & most likely blacklisting
But I caution about using the words he is using, especially in the automated comments calling people ID thiefs, scammers & spammers
I am certain some of the people who receive those comments are not
Posted via D.Buzz
The automated blacklist comment was by anyx in his database. It is a general comment. It says "or" (identity thief). As one of the reasons why someone is blacklisted. Maybe we could have separate blacklist comment for identity theft/deception. I will mention it to anyx. It will require some changes in database and bot coding.
Even if @hivewatchers points to someone who likely intended to impersonate, if they hadn't yet claimed to be that person, it should be worded in a different way IMO
But we will be adding opt-in blacklists to @dbuzz and I replied to HW about creating a verificatiom system
Posted via D.Buzz
The idea is to have an automated verification system where #HIVE accounts could associate their 3rd party social media accounts to their #HIVE usernames to prove they are legit
We'd display this on @dbuzz, similar to a blue checkmark, but users could opt-out/turn it off
Posted via D.Buzz
You yourself wrote in a comment that you thought @missbella was the same as the featured Chinese vlogger. I do not believe you are either stupid or gullible. It seems clear to me that you were deceived. I assume @dbuzz delegated 7 HP to the @missbella account based on the same good faith belief that there was no deception.
The word "unofficial" was only in the profile. There was no attempt in the low quality posts to make it expressly clear it was an unofficial fan. The @missbella comments weren't worded to make it clear a fan was replying to other users. It was only made clear by @missbella when @missbella was requested to provide proof of identity. If that hadn't happened @missbella would still be carrying on avoiding the reality.
Now backed in a corner @missbella threatens legal action hoping that will save whoever @missbella is. Unfortunately for @missbella there is an old maxim in law, "He who seeks equity must do equity".
Yeah, I will be undelegating from her @holovision, I did think she was the real #MissBella, just concerned for @hivewatchers
Not so much 4 this case, since it is almost black & white, but I do think the automated comments from HW's labeling scammers, etc should be changed
Posted via D.Buzz
That's great but why are you referring to @missbella as "she" because I haven't seen anything @missbella has posted identifying the user's gender. If we're to be cautious about accusations shouldn't we also be equally careful about misgendering, because, you know, hate crime.😀
Lol 😂 didn't realize how close to the edge I was walking 😆
Posted via D.Buzz
@holovision should we presume that you are the official 'holovision' you claim to be as there's no 'unofficial' or 'not affiliated with' status in your bio/description https://www.facebook.com/pg/holovisioninc/posts/ .... seems you're possibly breaking the 'rules'.
There are three other people besides myself in my county with my exact first and last name but I am not impersonating any of them. That's how stupid the game you are playing is. I never claimed that Facebook URL belonged to me. My profile has the domain holovision.tv and there is a post on that site proving that I control the site holovision.tv. Nobody is confused or deceived by my profile and blog, not even you as much as you pretend to be. Stop feigning a low I.Q. because it doesn't help your case. The Chinese have a rather sketchy reputation when it comes to intellectual property theft and you are just helping to perpetrate a bad stereotype.
I am VERY open to discuss this with you @logic @guiltyparties @hivewatchers
And again, I DON'T recommend what @missbella did, but wonder if she could argue it was a fan site, and in some courts (in certain countries) win
-> @themarkymark uses a celebrity's name
Posted via D.Buzz
She didn't re-upload the video but posted a link to the original author's work . . it would make sense for people to downvote, and if she doesn't set rewards to @null + indicate it as a fan account, I can see why it gets blacklisted @hivewatchers
Feedback? @holovision
Posted via D.Buzz
TheMarkyMark was a stage name, I didn’t even create it for that purpose was just a silly repeat name like dog dog. If you picked pink or even prince as an account name, you would be safe from any lawsuit unless you were pretending to be that person.
I use a celebrity as an avatar but that is a commissioned drawing and avatars are protected by fair use. No one is under the impression I am Mal Reynolds from Firefly or that I drew that and claiming it as my own (although it is a custom drawing in this case), nor is it being voted
On and collecting money like a post. At the same time I don’t think @apsu is a loaf of bread like his avatar.
I haven’t looked at the rest of the discussion just responding to your comparison using my username as an example.
Update, ok I looked back at what this is all about. It goes back to what I said before and another thing I say frequently.
No one of sound mind thinks I’m Mark Walberg (aka ThwMarkyMark) or Nathan Fillion/Mal Regnolds. I don’t pretend to be either or try to fool anyone that I am and it is pretty clear that I am not.
The second thing, in the case of posting someone else’s video, I have a general rule when I someone posts a content that is not theirs.
If it is not sourced, this is potentially plagiarism.
If the third part content is your post, this is generally rewards disagreement (if not plagiarism as well) but if you use third party content to add to your post (and it is sourced (I am generally ok with this).
Posting only someone else’s content in a post generally isn’t acceptable by itself. There is no reason someone here should get rewards for posting other people’s work.
If you can, please review this thread @themarkymark since @hivewatchers identified an account using someone elses name
I would like the wording & process of @hivewatchers to improve, and I think users should 1st be asked if they claim to be the author
Posted via D.Buzz
I will when I am on Pc. But speaking from experience, 99% of cases users are at fault. To wait for confirmation they are not would be extremely time consuming and impractical in 99% of cases. In many cases you never get a response, in most they lie.
I personally do some research and make an educated guess if I feel like something is owned by the author. In most cases it is clearly obvious.I have very very rarely been wrong.
If a mistake is made though, flags can be removed.
The problem is 99% of the time it is plagiarism not the original creator.
I can only speak of my experience, I am not Hive Watchers.
Ah okay, the actions of @hivewatchers in this case might be okay
But I am concerned w/the language they used, particularly in their automated comments labeling people scammers, spammers, ID theifs, etc.
Courts != Fair i.e. robber sues victim for injury during theft
Posted via D.Buzz
IMO the language of the automated comments should be changed to eliminate possible liability
Not only from cases where
But also from the falsely accused.. there are false accusations IMO
Posted via D.Buzz
Once our devs get done w/the next line of updates (1+ month from now) . . they can create software for your current verification system @logic @hivewatchers
+An API for #Dapps like @dbuzz to display verified users vs. unverified
There will be an opt-out view on @dbuzz 👍
Posted via D.Buzz
@logic Not really accurate as the site that the creator chooses to use has a permission-less share button, in fact like many mainstream sites and creators it positively encourages the sharing of links via the options it provides (it's called free promotion) or why provide them at all? If the site didn't offer a share feature and it was somehow being shared then I'd agree with your comment. Also by your logic you presume the creator both knows everyone who shares their links and approves of every link shared, this is both unrealistic and not required.
Essentially if a person doesn't want their content shared or consider it private then should they be hosting it on a public platform that actively encourages sharing?
Please don't twist the facts.
You know very well what is the difference between a concept of sharing on all these social media out there and copying someone content to monetize it which is what you were doing o Hive.
If you were just "sharing", why didn't you decline the payout then?
You either share something or you copy to monetize it.
Stop your spam bot, go fuck yourself and get a real job loser.
@hivewatcher For someone talking of the law you don't seem to have a very good understanding of it. Once again, you should be very very careful making such libelous comments in public on a public site in the form of text, especially when not in direct discussion with the person you are making such libelous allegations about. Screenshot taken to add to the collection.
I may lack originality but I'm no more of an identity thief than themarkymark is and no more of a content thief than the many people who share a publicly available link to content, thus making your accusations of identity theft very libelous.
Now would probably be a good time to familiarize yourself with libel law if you're going to continue making allegations of identity theft.
Miss, don't be afraid to share anything you want on Hive, Your RC's are the limits. Fuck the reputation system and their blacklists, It's broken system, and it will never work. Guys, like unlogic are losers. Be ready for everything, be tougher ...
Thanks @mmmmkkkk311, appreciate your what you're saying and thanks for the support. Authoritarian double standards are insane here. Literally everyone who commented are actually breaking the 'rules' themselves apart from Chris but there always seems to be some excuse for them doing so. If rules are only imposed on some while not others are they actually rules.
'#FreeSpeech social media alternative' yet it's more authoritarian than the big tech sites, just straight up lies bordering on scammers lol definitely false advertising
That reminds me. Happy #SuperheroSlanderSaturday everyone!