|
dingus
May 11, 2009, 11:34 AM
Post #76 of 174
(3198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
|
|
|
|
|
brijoel
May 11, 2009, 12:04 PM
Post #77 of 174
(3197 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2006
Posts: 31
|
The "right" to?
Actually, unless you're somehow making money off of these posts, or other people are (similarly for your daughters' crayon drawings), or people are not giving credit where credit is do - which IS done when quoting - you're spouting nonsense about "rights" regarding copying.
It's true you can remove whatever is within your power to remove, but by virtue of how this place works you should know better than to complain about people quoting you. It's out of your power. You acted knowing the consequences of those actions. You don't want people stealing your fart stories...? Copyright it or refrain from puting amateur content on the internet.
This is essentially the equivalent to someone linking a bunch of friends to my photography or emailing them to other people. I can take it down, but the other processes have already begun.
Feel free to find someone who wants to pay an amateur to hear/read a story about farting or crapping. Then go sue someone after. Good luck with that.
It's a campfire story which whomever you told it to certainly has the right to repeat in a similar manner and even more so if altered.
(This post was edited by brijoel on May 11, 2009, 12:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
May 11, 2009, 1:25 PM
Post #78 of 174
(3170 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
brijoel wrote: The "right" to? Actually, unless you're somehow making money off of these posts, or other people are (similarly for your daughters' crayon drawings), or people are not giving credit where credit is do - which IS done when quoting - you're spouting nonsense about "rights" regarding copying. It's true you can remove whatever is within your power to remove, but by virtue of how this place works you should know better than to complain about people quoting you. It's out of your power. You acted knowing the consequences of those actions. You don't want people stealing your fart stories...? Copyright it or refrain from puting amateur content on the internet. This is essentially the equivalent to someone linking a bunch of friends to my photography or emailing them to other people. I can take it down, but the other processes have already begun. Feel free to find someone who wants to pay an amateur to hear/read a story about farting or crapping. Then go sue someone after. Good luck with that. It's a campfire story which whomever you told it to certainly has the right to repeat in a similar manner and even more so if altered.
There is a difference between sending a link to a photo versus sending the photo itself. The first brings the viewer to the place where the photo is. The second is copyright infringement. It is the difference between saying "Go look at Tom Till's gallery," "Check out this image in this book;" versus photocopying the work and distributing it.
Copyright is not only of "professional" material, nor only of that which you sell for a profit. You inherently have a copyright to your work unless you forfeit it or assign it (or parts thereof) to another party.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
May 11, 2009, 3:52 PM
Post #79 of 174
(3151 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
bill413 wrote: I am not saying that DMT does this - I have too much respect for him to even entertain that he would consider this. However, it is a potential problem with others. Giving us the edit feature allows both the alteration and the vanishing. You get good with bad.
Dingus has repeatedly asked the owners/operators of this site to delete ALL of his posts. Thats a lot of holes in the archive and sets a bad precedent.
While it's not the exact the same thing your talking about, it does shine a little light on how much respect he has for the contributions of others to this little mural we've all been painting. When you pluck several posts from a page, you might not be "changing" context but your destroying it.
bill413 wrote: Personally, I try and quote only the pertinent parts of a post to provide context to my answers (serious or not). I do this for several reasons...one of them is saving space/bandwidth/etc. One of them is to isolate the piece I am addressing. In some cases, it is to respect the wishes of the originator. (vide supra)
As do I, the one exception is if I think the original may disappear. The most common example of this is the "quoting of the OP" (which we all do) because once the thread goes bad, they delete and everything is thrown in to confusion.
He has done just that. Dingus has not only removed stories like the ones from this thread but he has removed entire runs of posts, sometimes as many as 4-5 in a single page. Some threads are the works of art, not the individual posts and removing posts shows no reverence for the works of others.
Additionally he made this confession a while back -
dingus wrote: When I realized rc.com consistently put hurdles in front of users wishing to control their own posts and the then prevalent attitude that rc.com could be made into a money machine for the farm animals that moved into the farm house, I quietly edited many of my 'highly rated' posts to zero. Except for 2 gear articles I wrote for jung, I stopped posting anything of worth on rc.com.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...post=1398605#1398605
So he has done a hatchet job on the archive in the past and may be doing another one right now. Lota respect he has shown.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
May 11, 2009, 4:04 PM
Post #80 of 174
(3146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
milesenoell wrote: notapplicable wrote: A better analogy would be a group of people painting a mural together and one person coming back later and throwing paint thinner or the parts they worked on. It doesn't matter that they only removed their contributions, the whole deal is fucked at that point. Now that's a good analogy, but I'm still playing with hypotheticals. What if there was a feature which one could use that prevented quoting or archiving? Would people be welcome to ephemeral gems, knowing that there will be holes when the short display period ends? It seems that such a feature would certainly appeal to contributors like Dingus, and who knows how many others who haven't offered up their work because of the current situation. But my question is more aimed at the rest of us readers. Would you be interested in such a feature?
It's an interesting idea and I'm not entirely opposed to it, my only concern would be how to make sure it was used in an appropriately sparing fashion.
If it's not allowed for OP's, it is clearly labeled as removable and could only be used for very specific types of posts, then I wouldn't raise objections.
|
|
|
|
|
pmyche
May 11, 2009, 4:07 PM
Post #81 of 174
(3137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 1160
|
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
May 11, 2009, 5:50 PM
Post #82 of 174
(3103 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
pmyche wrote: PS: n/a, I appreciate your mural concept, but I don't think a person's individual right to her own property should be compromised because the work was part of a collective.
I would completely agree if we were talking about a construction similar to a collection of short stories where each merely shared a common theme or venue. Unfortunately here each post does not stand alone, they are interdependent.
Are you arguing that dingus should be able to start a thread with one of his anecdotes as the OP (which he has done), have an entire thread constructed around that OP and then go back and remove not only his OP but all his posts to the thread and leave a total clusterfuck? Do you feel that is an appropriate level of control over the site to give to it's users?
|
|
|
|
|
pmyche
May 11, 2009, 7:01 PM
Post #83 of 174
(3080 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2004
Posts: 1160
|
|
|
|
|
|
nika
May 11, 2009, 7:38 PM
Post #84 of 174
(3063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2003
Posts: 71
|
For heaven's sake. This is such a dumb thread on all levels. It doesn't matter what IP rights there are in the abstract for DMT's somewhat cliched stories (or for anything else posted) because the website's TOS covers it in section H: http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._of_Service_514.html
So it doesn't really make sense to be arguing about copyright in the abstract here. If you couldn't contract around copyright, the internet really wouldn't work. (Now you could argue that copyright is hopelessly outdated and doesn't begin to deal with the problems created by modern technology, but that's a bigger discussion than what's going on here.)
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
May 11, 2009, 9:55 PM
Post #85 of 174
(3038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
pmyche wrote: I understand the interdependence you cite, n/a.
If you understood it, we would not be having this conversation. Posting here is voluntary and if a person knows how this site is constructed and functions and they still post then they have granted permission for others to preserve their work in a fashion that extends beyond their control.
And that is before you bring in the issue of the TOS that nika was kind enough to link. Everyone who posts here has implicitly and explicitly agreed to contribute to the archive. They have chosen to forfeit their IP rights and they got not a leg to stand on when arguing to the contrary.
|
|
|
|
|
Terry2124
May 12, 2009, 6:22 PM
Post #86 of 174
(2998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 22, 2009
Posts: 223
|
dingus wrote: curt wrote: Whatever. As much as I appreciate your contributions, none of us are painting Picassos here. Curt Very true. But even my daughers have the absolute right to take down their refrigerator crayon drawings if they so choose. And none of the neighborhood kids have a right to copy them before they are removed. DMT
Copyright - You are certainly right Dingus.
|
|
|
|
|
markcarlson
May 12, 2009, 7:05 PM
Post #87 of 174
(2987 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2009
Posts: 123
|
dingus wrote: Very true. But even my daughers have the absolute right to take down their refrigerator crayon drawings if they so choose. And none of the neighborhood kids have a right to copy them before they are removed. DMT
Google has now cached the deleted posts instead of the original Google cache link provided previously.
However, one thing to take away from this is that you cannot treat an Internet forum like a conversation at a pub, or a picture on a refrigerator.
You can tell your friends a story at a pub, and they can tell others... but it will not be the same exact story.
People can look at the painting but they are not making an instant, exact copy every time they look at it.
When you tell a story on the Internet, be it on a fourm, in an email, video, etc. you are giving everyone a 100% reproducible copy of that story. Many people who read the story initially would have had it stored in their browser's cache, and if they so desired, they could have retrieved it from there with few difficulties. Then there's Google's cached copy, archive.org (who didn't archive the story in this case,) and who knows how many other spiders that have archived it.
The WWW is based on copying / sharing data. It is by design and unavoidable. While I appreciate your stories Dingus; if this bothers you then do not post them online, or get over it. Deleting your post serves little purpose, and is only fooling you into thinking nobody has copied it.
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
May 12, 2009, 7:29 PM
Post #88 of 174
(2974 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
I admit, I go back and forth about this. I want to respect Dingus' rights, but I also want to respect the communal mural.
I do think that if a producer of a work requests for it to be removed that fair consideration should be given to his desires, even if there is not a legal mandate to do so. This doesn't mean absolute consideration once it is let out, but fair & reasonable.
Yes, once something is out on the internet, it is out. However, it is an individual choice to propagate it or not.
As I said, I am of two minds. I don't fully understand Dingus' desire to withdraw his material, but (site terms of use not withstanding) recognize his authorship rights to do so. I also definitely understand the desire of many to not have content disappear - especially when it has received a reply.
Tough decisions. Tough problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
May 12, 2009, 7:52 PM
Post #90 of 174
(2963 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
There's a lot of information out there that is not freely shared. Many sites on the internet require a password to access. Some even want payment for their information.
Easily shared. Easily disseminated. Easily copied. But it is certainly not all free.
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
May 12, 2009, 8:01 PM
Post #91 of 174
(2952 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
notapplicable wrote: Are you arguing that dingus should be able to start a thread with one of his anecdotes as the OP (which he has done), have an entire thread constructed around that OP and then go back and remove not only his OP but all his posts to the thread and leave a total clusterfuck? Do you feel that is an appropriate level of control over the site to give to it's users?
There is nothing in the terms of service of RC.com that suggest otherwise. A user may edit or delete his/her own posts. Period.
Posting here is voluntary, as you said, and anyone who knows how this site is constructed has granted permission for others to remove their own posts within a thread you have participated in.
markcarlson wrote: Deleting your post serves little purpose, and is only fooling you into thinking nobody has copied it.
Except that you can't easily find the stories anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
kylekienitz
May 12, 2009, 8:27 PM
Post #92 of 174
(2933 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2005
Posts: 256
|
The internet is a great tool. Today the internet is necessary for the advancement of our culture, AND if you believe that the purpose of the internet is the mass sharing of ideas and information, then who owns intellectual rights? It's the collective unconscious man! (except more techy) True, some people want to make money off of the sharing of ideas and information, but should the internet be public domain?
I highly recommend the film that I linked to earlier.
torrent: http://btjunkie.org/...ab916cf6eea687073769
yeah for the copyLEFT!
|
|
|
|
|
armsrforclimbing
May 12, 2009, 8:30 PM
Post #93 of 174
(2929 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 214
|
I think it only contributes to the "Community Mural" (what a lame term for RC.com) that you have a guy like Dingus out there that deletes his own posts. Its fitting that there are still fiercly independent people out there, this IS a climbing site after all. For those that are upset that Dingus is deleting his posts, WAAAA  . This site is hardly ever taken seriously by anyone to begin with.
Now put a book out already.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
May 12, 2009, 8:42 PM
Post #94 of 174
(2917 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
bill413 wrote: I admit, I go back and forth about this. I want to respect Dingus' rights, but I also want to respect the communal mural. I do think that if a producer of a work requests for it to be removed that fair consideration should be given to his desires, even if there is not a legal mandate to do so. This doesn't mean absolute consideration once it is let out, but fair & reasonable. Yes, once something is out on the internet, it is out. However, it is an individual choice to propagate it or not. As I said, I am of two minds. I don't fully understand Dingus' desire to withdraw his material, but (site terms of use not withstanding) recognize his authorship rights to do so. I also definitely understand the desire of many to not have content disappear - especially when it has received a reply. Tough decisions. Tough problem.
Bill, I think you have put out what I always feel is a very important distinction. Legal vs. right (not as in "bill of" but rather as in "opposite of wrong").
Sure, there are lots and lots of things that we can legally do but to do so would make us assholes. We, here, have a community that shares certain experiences, likes, desires, etc., and we meet here voluntarily to talk about, well, pretty much everything. I would truly hate to see the only thing governing our self-made and self-selected little community be The Law. Be it US copyright law, the TOC, etc. Those should simply serve as an "outer bounds" of acceptable behavior. I, for one, certainly would hate to be a person whose sole compass for "good behavior" is the law.
YES, the law should (and in many cases does) reflect what we as a society think of as "the good". But there are many compromises made in the name of freedoms. Such that, in the name of an abstract good (and a good I certainly hold dear to my heart, don't get me wrong) we decide that we as a society will allow asshole/crappy/dickish/etc. behavior to go on as legal. Ethical, well probably not. But legal yes.
My plea to all of you is to not make this discussion about what we as posters to an internet forum have as legal rights. Or some abstract discussion about what the internet has done in terms of our understanding of ownership vis a vis digital representations of thought. I would ask that we as a community rather discuss specifically what we as a community want to see in terms of these matters.
Don't discuss "the ramifications of the internet to ownership of text in online forums", discuss how we want our community specifically to behave.
|
|
|
|
|
xtrmecat
May 12, 2009, 9:20 PM
Post #95 of 174
(2901 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2004
Posts: 548
|
Thank you, altelis. you are on the same page as I.
Dingus does not want to this story out on the internet, and he says so. I have a copy in my cache, and even have a copy saved as a Word document. Does this make me more powerful, or the keeper of something that I may be able to exploit as I see fit?
This is not a real great place to learn how to rock climb, and even a worse place to learn safety, or morality. RC.Noob is what many of the other places I frequent call it. And rightfully so. Should I just do as I please, post whatever I wish, and hide behind the anonymity that is the inturdnet? I refuse to bow to this level, and try to do the opposite. If Dingus wishes is not to have this story passed around, then I will certainly comply, not because I am his friend. I am not, I have never met him.
I will do this to try to do the right thing, period. And in doing so hopeto inspire someone else to act the same here, even if it is being polite, instead of flaming any and all posters that seem to not have it together as said flamer does.
For fuck sake, just dry your tears, get a beer, try add a little to life here on this planet, and wait like the rest of us for the book to come out. If you would, please, try to contribute to the community positively, and maybe even try to be part of the solution to life, not the problem?
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 13, 2009, 12:11 AM
Post #96 of 174
(2866 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 13, 2009, 12:18 AM
Post #97 of 174
(2860 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
May 13, 2009, 12:26 AM
Post #98 of 174
(2853 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
altelis wrote: Bill, I think you have put out what I always feel is a very important distinction. Legal vs. right (not as in "bill of" but rather as in "opposite of wrong").
altelis wrote: Sure, there are lots and lots of things that we can legally do but to do so would make us assholes.
altelis wrote: We, here, have a community that shares certain experiences, likes, desires, etc., and we meet here voluntarily to talk about, well, pretty much everything.... My plea to all of you is to not make this discussion about what we as posters to an internet forum have as legal rights. Or some abstract discussion about what the internet has done in terms of our understanding of ownership vis a vis digital representations of thought. I would ask that we as a community rather discuss specifically what we as a community want to see in terms of these matters. Don't discuss "the ramifications of the internet to ownership of text in online forums", discuss how we want our community specifically to behave.
Very good thoughts. It's interesting that this thread has turned into the place for this discussion.
xtrmecat wrote: Dingus does not want to this story out on the internet, and he says so. I have a copy in my cache, and even have a copy saved as a Word document. Does this make me more powerful, or the keeper of something that I may be able to exploit as I see fit?
xtrmecat wrote: If Dingus wishes is not to have this story passed around, then I will certainly comply, not because I am his friend. I am not, I have never met him. I will do this to try to do the right thing, period.
And, no matter what we may think is the right thing, we know (especially as climbers ) that there are others that will not respect that. But, that said, all we can ultimately do is what we think is right.
(xtrmecat - I am not attacking you, perhaps not even disagreeing - I think that this has become an extremely interesting debate & discussion. I like trying to examine these points.)
|
|
|
|
|
angry
May 13, 2009, 12:36 AM
Post #99 of 174
(2849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Y'all are a bunch of corn eyed butt snakes.
Bunch of retards.
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
May 13, 2009, 1:38 AM
Post #100 of 174
(3123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
(Again, DMT, I will remove if asked, and edit this accordingly.)
dingus wrote: When MY community seeks to exert control over MY content I no longer feel a part of that commuity.
dingus wrote: Much as I would object if I tossed some cams into the community rack at the Canyonlands only to be told that I couldn't have them back.
I think that there is a difference in this analogy...the cams are clearly something that have a concrete use to you if you take them back. It's not clear to me that your stories do. You could certainly collect them into a book (many of us would be interested in reading such a collection or narrative)...but I'm not sure that having these pearls of snippets (and some other types of snippets) out on the net imperils such a thing.
I feel that there are two extremes in this discussion. I really would hope that we can find a middle ground that is both respectful of the creators of content as well as the community at large. I don't think this is easy, and I don't know what it would be (as if anyone would agree if I said it was "X.") I do think that having some control over your work is both important & proper. I also feel that if I respond to some content, I regard my work as meaningful also, and that my response should not suddenly lose context.
Bill
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
