291–300 of 354 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After all the very passionate feedback yesterday here and on Twitter, we're reworking things to make it clear who's participating in Brave Rewards and will receive tips and who's not and won't. We erred in shipping UI/UX that didn't make this clear enough. We're fixing this.
You erred in "opt-out" versus "opt-in". Literally your founder advocated this spammy method.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither does Brave, its really clear when you use the browser that you are allocating your funds via the BAT system not "fundraising" on behalf of a person, and its also clear what happens to your funds if the person you allocated them to doesn't want them. Also the idea your in more legal jeopardy working at Brave, then you are working at any other company is silly. There is a distinction in corporate liability betw…
Like I said elsewhere: these kinds of schemes don't really "work". The best that happens is you get away with it for a while until you accidentally do it to someone with resources. Are you carefully vetting every single entity whose content you show this pop-up on (regardless of what description you choose to use to spin what it is) to make sure none of them have trademarks that could be enforced against you? Because…
You are wrong about this, there is lots of precedent to say this is legal, and even more to say that working at brave is not a legal liability. However I am not your lawyer, nor am I Brave's lawyer, or Tom's Lawyer. I am not at all related to anyone involved in this fight, I am just a lowly internet user who happens to think this is a good model for the future of the internet. Feel free to ignore me and continue to tell people the sky is falling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like I said elsewhere: these kinds of schemes don't really "work". The best that happens is you get away with it for a while until you accidentally do it to someone with resources. Are you carefully vetting every single entity whose content you show this pop-up on (regardless of what description you choose to use to spin what it is) to make sure none of them have trademarks that could be enforced against you? Because…
The courts have ruled many times using content that is in the public domain is fair use, you have no claim to trademark protection when you place your information on the internet for others to scrape ( you can however opt out, read up on the various Google News fights if you need more info ), but lets say we live in a world where Brave looses that court case, and someone decides this was all illegal. There is no liab…
If you take all your legal advice from people who repost whole movies onto youtube and put "no copyright intended" in the description as if it's a magic talisman, maybe.
But in the actual world, if you use someone else's trademark to make money, you're gonna have a bad time, and part of that bad time will be learning in excruciating detail what "public domain" and "fair use" actually mean.
"Something is viewable by the public on the internet" is not "public domain". Public domain means copyright has expired on the material, or that the material was for some reason never protected by copyright (such as certain works of the federal government, in the US). "Fair use" is a defense that can be raised to claims of copyright infringement, and uses a multi-factor test. None of the factors are "but it was there on the internet for me to take".
Neither of these involve trademarks, which are a different area entirely. Using someone else's trademark for your profit is very much not "public domain" and not "fair use", and will not end well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The courts have ruled many times using content that is in the public domain is fair use, you have no claim to trademark protection when you place your information on the internet for others to scrape ( you can however opt out, read up on the various Google News fights if you need more info ), but lets say we live in a world where Brave looses that court case, and someone decides this was all illegal. There is no liab…
The courts have ruled many times using content that is in the public domain is fair use, you have no claim to trademark protection If you take all your legal advice from people who repost whole movies onto youtube and put "no copyright intended" in the description as if it's a magic talisman, maybe. But in the actual world, if you use someone else's trademark to make money, you're gonna have a bad time, and part of t…
This case was about google getting money while displaying parts of copyrighted material. The court ruled it was fair use. (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/834877-google-books-...)
This case ( still pending ) was about google being able to display parts of news stories without paying the authors ( the initial ruling was it was legal, but Germany was allowed to impose a "tax", current guidance is that even the tax may not be allowed and Google will be able to display the content ) https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/12/13/technology/13reut...
Since you referenced people who had the same idea as Brave and it was found to be illegal, would you care to reference those specific cases ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The courts have ruled many times using content that is in the public domain is fair use, you have no claim to trademark protection If you take all your legal advice from people who repost whole movies onto youtube and put "no copyright intended" in the description as if it's a magic talisman, maybe. But in the actual world, if you use someone else's trademark to make money, you're gonna have a bad time, and part of t…
Your correct that in the real world things are different, in fact here are the real world court cases that in my opinion clearly define the activity of the Brave browser as not a copyright violation. This case was about google getting money while displaying parts of copyrighted material. The court ruled it was fair use. ( https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/834877-google-books-... ) This case ( still pending ) wa…
You also keep citing copyright cases. You cited a case where the multi-factor test of fair use was met, without explaining why you think Brave would meet that test.
You have not yet provided evidence of a case ruling that all trademarks are "public domain" free for the "fair use" of anyone for any purpose, and therefore that trademarks provide no protection whatsoever. I await your attempt to do so.
I just dug up info on how Brave’s contributions thing works and it feels like such a mess. According to https://brave.com/publishers/ - once you have accumulated $100 in contributions they email “the webmaster at your site” and the owner of your domain according to the WHOIS. I assume this is “webmaster@domain.name”, which I sure don’t have set up on my personal site. - you have to “check your balance frequently and…
I work at Brave on the business team. This is helpful feedback. Brave is a startup with a small team earnestly building a new thing that combines a browser with a tipping system, with creator tools, with ad blocking... it's ambitious! As it's a new thing, describing it can be messy sometimes. We're always working to make our language better and clearer though. Thank you for letting us know it fell short for you. To a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty accurate read on things. We've never actually recycled any funds and also hadn't considered that many creators would interpret our UI/UX as "solicitation" vs. "letting a user do a thing they want to do in our browser." In any event, the confusion is our fault and we're working on updating the UI and language to be clear based on all the feedback we've gotten.
How about instead you shut this off and rebuild it to be explicitly opt-in only? Or, better for you personally: how about you hand in your resignation and retain an attorney? Here's the thing: people who get away with this type of thing (sorry, "exciting and new crowdfunding option for creators", or whatever y'all prefer to call it) tend to get away with it only for as long as the targets of their "fundraising" are s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're taking money for people without a good way of getting it to them (or ensuring that they want the money at all). My friend Mark had an accident and I think he needs help paying for it. Would you give me some money to help Mark pay for his medical bills? Thank you, I'll just put it in my bank account until Mark asks me for the it. Trust me, I'm trying very hard to let Mark know I have money for him. I'm going to…
This was not our intention. We shipped a UI/UX that was confusing. We originally used checkmarks to denote creators participating in the program but did not have clear language or markers for creators not participating in then program. Many have pointed out the problem with that, which is helpful! That's all being updated now and will hopefully roll out very soon. We've heard the feedback and will make sure no creato…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to muddle into the legal discussion, but I would like to add that I've been a happy Brave user for several months and have never felt any misunderstanding about where my tips are going. It is very clear to me who is a -verified- publisher and who isn't one. It was also made clear to me that unverified publishers were getting their tips stored in escrow as a carrot to entice them to enroll. Since I obviou…
Can you show screenshots of that? What do the prompts from https://twitter.com/ummjackson/status/1076221401353207808 look like for a verified publisher?
It has a pretty obvious mark under the name if they are verified.
