thoreau wrote: This.

If we do that, can I at least psychically attack her?

Just a bit?

I disagree strongly, just delete all mention of her and ignore.

I also strongly disagree.

If you give in to her silly little whim, others may see that as an open door.

She has no legal grounds whatsoever. Maybe you could have obliged if she was a bit more decent about the matter, but she wasn't, so tough titty,

UFOChick, you're getting free traffic. Accept it.

The way I see it she's worried that any mention of her on here gets her banned on DIF lol !

Gilly wrote:
Like you've ever required permission before...

the way I see it is that she is attempting to threaten us with closure and whilst complying and ignoring are very legitimate and more grown up responses than my own suggestion, a formal statement and account of what has happened and why will allow people to make up their own minds as to her reasonableness and ours. Plus in complying as a gesture of goodwill and not accepting her copyright claims we are going to save ourselves any hassle that is unnecessary if she does decide to be a thorn over the issue.

If we delete any mention of her then she doesn't get the google ranking pimpage so...result basically.

andyh wrote:
Then why delete all mention?

One additional suggestion was to make her a banner to add to the recommended sites, blogs and forums thread....to show there's no ill will on SZ's part

thoreau wrote:
I understand everything except for the thorn side of things. She doesn't have a leg to stand on, so where's the thorn in that?

Surely it'll just be a case of her wasting her time to be told "sorry love, nowt wrong here, get over yourself".

Just my opinion of course.

oioioi wrote:
I admire the downright evil thinking.

In fact, can we make than an option and have the vote again? :p

@rizla

If it were me who had to take responsibility for fighting the claim of copyright infringement then tbh I would say stuff her as I believe and from talking with one of the legal team where I volunteer (in fairness they are housing lawyers though so copyright not their area of expertise) that we are protected by fair use. However if she wants to make a big stink about it via our service provider that will be a headache for oi who has taken the ultimate responsibility for the site (correct me if wrong)

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

I'm torn now.

Whatever we decide on this one though sets a precedent if there are any others thinking of causing us 'hassle', although this obviously doesn't mean it's set in stone.

I have taken on ownership irresponsibly It's just my name, and yes it would be me ultimately that would have to deal with any shit in a practical sense but it would only ever be as a representative of the forum, I knew that when I signed up for it so don't make decisions based on saving me shitstorms, I like a good shitstorm, especially if it's one in the eye for our friends the DIF mods

thoreau wrote:
Hmmmm......

You've won me over

We all know its bollocks (she probably does herself as well) but I suppose its a quick way of sorting things out without playing the game at her level.

oioioi wrote:
Why don't we (he says having only been here a week ) take the moral high ground on this one, and should there be any further hassle play things on a more legal basis?

SilvaRizla wrote:
We are all DIFugees!

Quick! Get that on a t-shirt!

Yep nice huge ufochick banner made by feather on the SZ front page and mentions all over the forum for uberpimpage.

if we stated our actions are a gesture of goodwill, we are accepting no liability nor wrong doing on our part, therefore no precedent set.

however should we ever be actually guilty of infringing copyright the correct thing to do imho would be to fess up apologise and remove the offending post.