|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 3:32 PM
Post #26 of 157
(6521 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
DDT and Mods-
It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated.
Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated.
-aric.
(This post was edited by adatesman on Aug 15, 2010, 3:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
climbs4fun
Moderator
Aug 15, 2010, 3:44 PM
Post #27 of 157
(6510 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2003
Posts: 9679
|
curt wrote: jakedatc wrote: curt wrote: jakedatc wrote: either way.. the info is gone and in the context of this thread that is what matters and is the way that it should be. Again, the "info" is probably not permanently gone, it simply can't be viewed by users at the present time. Whether that is right or wrong is more the current issue. Curt Pretty sure you are wrong. A mod would have to confirm it though. Oh, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the content of the servers here is backed up (saved) periodically. Any site pretty much has to do that in case their server really crashes hard--and they need to do a restore from one of the recent back ups. Curt
|
|
|
|
|
silascl
Aug 15, 2010, 4:14 PM
Post #28 of 157
(6501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 14, 2006
Posts: 225
|
adatesman wrote: DDT and Mods- It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated. -aric.
Quoted
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Aug 15, 2010, 4:17 PM
Post #29 of 157
(6498 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
silascl wrote: adatesman wrote: DDT and Mods- It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated. -aric. Quoted
Zing!
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Aug 15, 2010, 4:29 PM
Post #30 of 157
(6488 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
notapplicable wrote: So, those of you who think posters should be able to delete anything they want. Aric is currently deleting his, largely unquoted, posts from the "Alien Failures" thread. Not only are there possible safety implications but you may also recall that many of us put up our own cash to purchase the second round of pull tested aliens. Those results are now gone. Do you stand in defense of that? No collective discourse, eh? Edit: My mistake. I forgot that the second round of testing had it's own thread so those posts have been quoted for preservation, along with the first several pages from the alien failures thread.
that doesn't bother me.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Aug 15, 2010, 4:35 PM
Post #31 of 157
(6483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
adatesman wrote: DDT and Mods- It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated. -aric.
Aric, you should consider those posts as good as quoted because everyone else's content in those threads rely on them for context and you are not the only one who was contributing research and expertise. Unfortunately some folks chose to hit reply instead of quote, if they had done the latter, you would have no recourse.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 15, 2010, 7:09 PM
Post #32 of 157
(6466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
j_ung wrote: curt wrote: jakedatc wrote: notapplicable wrote: I haven't been active much lately so I'm just now discovering the blowup that resulted in Adatesman "leaving" the site and the bullshit that has followed with him deleting large amount of content from the lab and possibly other forums. THAT SHOULD NEVER BE PERMITTED TO HAPPEN. Especially since he announced his intentions in advance. Thread continuity is key to any value this site may have and is, at the very least, a simple courtesy owed to the other contributors. Everyone who posts to this site knows they are contributing to an archived dialogue. They also have every reason to expect that the site owners/managers will maintain thread and archive integrity. I've said it before and I'll say it again. When a person decides to post to this site, they are making a contribution to the archive of collective discourse. Simple as that. To withdraw ones contributions is to mar the contributions of the others here. To do so is childish and disrespectful, to allow it to happen on your site is the epitome of unprofessionalism. Disagree. posts have always been the "property" of the person who posts it. You can add and remove anything you want whenever you want. RC.com owns the site, not the content. It is in their best interests to run their site in such a way that valuable contributors do not leave and take their information with them... I'm not so sure about that. Have you read the Terms of Service here? Here is the final Term: RC.com Terms of Service wrote:
(H) By publishing or submitting any content including, articles, stories, postings and photographs to any part of Rockclimbing.com you give permission that such content may be used at the sole discretion of Rockclimbing.com anywhere else on the site, for any purpose, in its original or edited form, at any time in the future. Content will not be sold without permission of the original author or owner.
The bolding is mine. I hadn't actually given it much thought, previously--but it does appear to me (from this) that the site claims a future right to a user's posts. In practice, I think users have had a right to control their content, but this current practice seems to conflict with the T.O.S., unless of course I'm reading it wrong. Curt You're misinterpreting it. That clause in the TOS is to protect the site's ability to provide a quote function, move threads and display content in areas of the site the poster may not have originally intended, for example photos on the front page.
Thanks for clearing up the intent of the TOS language. I still believe that clause would give RC.com the right to restore anything that was once posted on the site. I'm not necessarily advocating for that because I think both notapplicable and Aric have some valid points. I just never gave it much thought before and until I read the TOS in the context of this particular issue, I had never focused on the precise language of that last clause.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 15, 2010, 7:12 PM
Post #33 of 157
(6464 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: DDT and Mods- It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated. -aric.
So, you not only want the right to delete your own content, but to have content removed from other user's posts? That's quite amazing.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 7:27 PM
Post #34 of 157
(6456 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
curt wrote: adatesman wrote: DDT and Mods- It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated. -aric. So, you not only want the right to delete your own content, but to have content removed from other user's posts? That's quite amazing. Curt
When said posts are being done explicitly to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS, yes. The posts in question are not part of the original discussions and contain no new content, so therefore are being done specifically to deny me my rights under the TOS and should be removed.
I would also point out that posts I had removed yesterday are now popping back up, which means that another user is pulling copies of my posts from their browser cache to quote them back into the threads. Another user presuming to have a greater right to the usage of my content than I do is in violation of both the letter and spirit of the TOS.
EDIT- I was incorrect that the user was pulling them from his browser cache. Apparently he's getting them from Google Cache instead (according to a PM from the user in question), which in my mind blows a hole in any argument based upon loss of value to the community, as it is clearly still available elsewhere.
(This post was edited by adatesman on Aug 15, 2010, 8:48 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 15, 2010, 7:39 PM
Post #35 of 157
(6437 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: DDT and Mods- It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated. -aric. So, you not only want the right to delete your own content, but to have content removed from other user's posts? That's quite amazing. Curt When said posts are being done explicitly to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS, yes. The posts in question are not part of the original discussions and contain no new content, so therefore are being done specifically to deny me my rights under the TOS and should be removed.
As far as I can tell, you have the right to delete and edit your own posts and your rights end precisely there. I will however add the disclaimer that I'm not an attorney or an expert in copyright issues.
Edited to add:
If this (below) is true, it certainly changes things, in my opinion:
notapplicable wrote: ...Not only are there possible safety implications but you may also recall that many of us put up our own cash to purchase the second round of pull tested aliens. Those results are now gone. Do you stand in defense of that? No collective discourse, eh?
1) The fact that you were acting not just as an individual but in the capacity of the Lab Forum editor for RC.com brings into question whether the content you posted there is truly yours alone.
2) If money was solicited to enable any of the work you did, this further reinforces the position that the work product was not solely owned by you.
Curt
(This post was edited by curt on Aug 15, 2010, 8:10 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 8:16 PM
Post #36 of 157
(6418 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
curt wrote: adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: DDT and Mods- It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated. -aric. So, you not only want the right to delete your own content, but to have content removed from other user's posts? That's quite amazing. Curt When said posts are being done explicitly to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS, yes. The posts in question are not part of the original discussions and contain no new content, so therefore are being done specifically to deny me my rights under the TOS and should be removed. As far as I can tell, you have the right to delete and edit your own posts and your rights end precisely there. I will however add the disclaimer that I'm not an attorney or an expert in copyright issues. Curt
I'm not asking for the right to control over another user's posts. I'm asking that Management respect my right to the control of my content and remove posts done specifically to deny me the right to the control of it. This is clearly within their rights and capabilities, not to mention being the proper thing to do.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 8:20 PM
Post #37 of 157
(6415 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
curt wrote: 1) The fact that you were acting not just as an individual but in the capacity of the Lab Forum editor for RC.com brings into question whether the content you posted there is truly yours alone. 2) If money was solicited to enable any of the work you did, this further reinforces the position that the work product was not solely owned by you. Curt
Incorrect. That work was done by me solely for the greater good of the climbing community. RC had nothing to do with it, and if you care to recall the same results and information (as well as the solicitation for funds for further testing) was made available in ST, MP, SP, Gunks, CC, etc. RC has no more a claim on it than any of the other sites, which in total amounts to zero. Work done by me, with funds solicited by me on multiple venues and with no official backing from anyone is pretty much the definition of work product that I can claim ownership of.
(This post was edited by adatesman on Aug 15, 2010, 8:51 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 15, 2010, 9:00 PM
Post #38 of 157
(6402 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: curt wrote: 1) The fact that you were acting not just as an individual but in the capacity of the Lab Forum editor for RC.com brings into question whether the content you posted there is truly yours alone. 2) If money was solicited to enable any of the work you did, this further reinforces the position that the work product was not solely owned by you. Curt Incorrect. That work was done by me solely for the greater good of the climbing community. RC had nothing to do with it, and if you care to recall the same results and information (as well as the solicitation for funds for further testing) was made available in ST, MP, SP, Gunks, CC, etc. RC has no more a claim on it than any of the other sites, which in total amounts to zero. Work done by me, with funds solicited by me on multiple venues and with no official backing from anyone is pretty much the definition of work product that I can claim ownership of.
Are you saying that (2) above is false? This was a claim made by notapplicable--that money was contributed to purchase Aliens for at least some of your tests.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 9:01 PM
Post #39 of 157
(6400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
adatesman wrote: curt wrote: So, you not only want the right to delete your own content, but to have content removed from other user's posts? That's quite amazing. Curt When said posts are being done explicitly to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS, yes. The posts in question are not part of the original discussions and contain no new content, so therefore are being done specifically to deny me my rights under the TOS and should be removed. I would also point out that posts I had removed yesterday are now popping back up, which means that another user is pulling copies of my posts from their browser cache to quote them back into the threads. Another user presuming to have a greater right to the usage of my content than I do is in violation of both the letter and spirit of the TOS. EDIT- I was incorrect that the user was pulling them from his browser cache. Apparently he's getting them from Google Cache instead (according to a PM from the user in question), which in my mind blows a hole in any argument based upon loss of value to the community, as it is clearly still available elsewhere.
Oh, and following from that I may also point out that it my intent to host the bulk of the removed content elsewhere. Yes, the community as a whole will be inconvenienced in the short term as the move is completed, but in the long term having it hosted in a place with a higher signal:noise ratio and less inter-user abuse will have a much greater value to everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 15, 2010, 9:02 PM
Post #40 of 157
(6399 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: curt wrote: jakedatc wrote: curt wrote: jakedatc wrote: In reply to: you give permission that such content may be used at the sole discretion of Rockclimbing.com anywhere else on the site It reads to me that they can put it up on the front page or whatever. And they can delete it as they see fit.. not that you can't change it. Maybe you were still a mod then but isn't the only reason PTPP's stuff is still intact is that he was banned before he could edit it My point was primarily related to the part I bolded. That part seems to say that once you post something here, RC.com has a future right to use it any way they like--except for commercial gain, which is specifically not allowed without the user's permission. As far as PTPP goes, I have no idea if he had any desire to delete any of his content when he left. Curt See the next part that i posted.. another section allows you to delete as much as you want. they just won't do it for you.. much to Dingus's dismay I never said they won't allow you to delete your posts. My point is that the content on servers is archived all the time and even after you delete a post, there is a reasonably good chance they still have it somewhere--particularly if the post existed for a while. And, they reserve the right to use anything you have previously posted in the future. I have never seen them do this, only that the T.O.S. apparently allows for it. Curt This is the impression I have, too, that the content is still there even though Aric "deleted" it.
There may be a difference between deleting a post, and deleting just the content of the post. If (a mod, at least) deletes a user's post, the post remains in the database; it just isn't displayed. However, if a user deletes the content of his post, he may be just doing an edit, and it may well be that when he submits the edited post, it overwrites the original content in the database. In that case, the original content would be gone, unless it had been saved during a database backup, and not overwritten by a subsequent backup. Of course it could be the case that the DB actually saves each version of an edited post separately, so that older versions could be restored by the DB administrator. I don't know, but I don't think it's safe to assume that the original version exists.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 15, 2010, 9:17 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 9:07 PM
Post #41 of 157
(6395 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
curt wrote: adatesman wrote: curt wrote: 1) The fact that you were acting not just as an individual but in the capacity of the Lab Forum editor for RC.com brings into question whether the content you posted there is truly yours alone. 2) If money was solicited to enable any of the work you did, this further reinforces the position that the work product was not solely owned by you. Curt Incorrect. That work was done by me solely for the greater good of the climbing community. RC had nothing to do with it, and if you care to recall the same results and information (as well as the solicitation for funds for further testing) was made available in ST, MP, SP, Gunks, CC, etc. RC has no more a claim on it than any of the other sites, which in total amounts to zero. Work done by me, with funds solicited by me on multiple venues and with no official backing from anyone is pretty much the definition of work product that I can claim ownership of. Are you saying that (2) above is false? This was a claim made by notapplicable--that money was contributed to purchase Aliens for at least some of your tests. Curt
I am saying that funds were solicited by me on RC, Gunks, ST, MP, SP, CC and possibly several other sites. Some people responded via email, some via PM on whatever site they saw it on, and in other cases a random check simply appeared in my mailbox. And in one case the donation was a $20 Starbucks card. RC neither had any involvement in this testing nor did they ever officially sanction any of the work I've done in The Lab. My suspicion is that officially sanctioning the testing of commercial gear by a user would interfere with the business/advertising relationship they need to maintain with the gear manufacturers and as such it was always considered my personal work product that they had no claim to.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 15, 2010, 9:08 PM
Post #42 of 157
(6392 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 9:09 PM
Post #43 of 157
(6391 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: This is the impression I have, too, that the content is still there even though Aric "deleted" it. There is a difference between deleting a post, and deleting just the content of the post. If (a mod, at least) deletes a user's post, the post remains in the database; it just isn't displayed. However, if a user deletes the content of his post, he is just doing an edit, and it may well be that when he submits the edited post, it overwrites the original content in the database. In that case, the original content would be gone, unless it had been saved during a database backup, and not overwritten by a subsequent backup. Of course it could be the case that the DB actually saves each version of an edited post separately, so that older versions could be restored by the DB administrator. I don't know, but I don't think it's safe to assume that the original version exists. Jay
This is my understanding as well, based on seeing deleted user posts when I was a Mod.
|
|
|
|
|
davidnn5
Aug 15, 2010, 9:15 PM
Post #44 of 157
(6380 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 8, 2009
Posts: 348
|
Aric: I'm sure you can see what you're really asking for is that Jay and Curt are punished by proxy. Since their behaviour falls within the terms of the site, you're removing all of your content in an effort to get other users pissed off at their behaviour.
Frankly, some of us were pissed off at their behaviour to start with, and you're not advancing your own flag by requesting this. You're putting the mods in a no-win position (they either abuse your "rights" or remove a lot of information other users may find useful).
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 15, 2010, 9:31 PM
Post #45 of 157
(6364 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: DDT and Mods- It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated. -aric. So, you not only want the right to delete your own content, but to have content removed from other user's posts? That's quite amazing. Curt When said posts are being done explicitly to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS, yes. The posts in question are not part of the original discussions and contain no new content, so therefore are being done specifically to deny me my rights under the TOS and should be removed. I would also point out that posts I had removed yesterday are now popping back up, which means that another user is pulling copies of my posts from their browser cache to quote them back into the threads. Another user presuming to have a greater right to the usage of my content than I do is in violation of both the letter and spirit of the TOS. EDIT- I was incorrect that the user was pulling them from his browser cache. Apparently he's getting them from Google Cache instead (according to a PM from the user in question), which in my mind blows a hole in any argument based upon loss of value to the community, as it is clearly still available elsewhere.
It's only available in google cache for a matter of hours to days, which is a fatal blow to your own argument, since the only way to keep that material available to the community is to promptly retrieve and repost it somewhere.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 15, 2010, 9:37 PM
Post #46 of 157
(6358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
curt wrote: adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: DDT and Mods- It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated. -aric. So, you not only want the right to delete your own content, but to have content removed from other user's posts? That's quite amazing. Curt When said posts are being done explicitly to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS, yes. The posts in question are not part of the original discussions and contain no new content, so therefore are being done specifically to deny me my rights under the TOS and should be removed. As far as I can tell, you have the right to delete and edit your own posts and your rights end precisely there. I will however add the disclaimer that I'm not an attorney or an expert in copyright issues. Edited to add: If this (below) is true, it certainly changes things, in my opinion: notapplicable wrote: ...Not only are there possible safety implications but you may also recall that many of us put up our own cash to purchase the second round of pull tested aliens. Those results are now gone. Do you stand in defense of that? No collective discourse, eh? 1) The fact that you were acting not just as an individual but in the capacity of the Lab Forum editor for RC.com brings into question whether the content you posted there is truly yours alone. 2) If money was solicited to enable any of the work you did, this further reinforces the position that the work product was not solely owned by you. Curt
I agree with both those reasons, and would add a third: some of that material had public safety implications, and as such it is unethical to withdraw the information.
I think that once someone publishes any experimental results that the results should become part of the public domain. That's the way it works in science. Once you publish a paper, the information belongs to the world, not just you, and you can't somehow unpublish it. This website isn't a peer review journal, but I don't see why the same philosophy shouldn't apply.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Aug 15, 2010, 9:41 PM
Post #47 of 157
(6356 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
Well, having come to this party late...
1) I am totally shocked.
2) I contributed to Aric's testing (monetarily). I have offered material contributions on occaision. I did so in a spirit of transparency. I'm sorry to see so much information lost.
3) I frequently use the edit function. I'll hit post...then realize I could have said it better. In consequence of (3), perhaps an edit function that did not allow you to edit after 24 hours would be a good thing (I do realize that that might cause me to miss some of dingus' stories, to my loss).
4) WTF????
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 15, 2010, 9:41 PM
Post #48 of 157
(6355 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: curt wrote: 1) The fact that you were acting not just as an individual but in the capacity of the Lab Forum editor for RC.com brings into question whether the content you posted there is truly yours alone. 2) If money was solicited to enable any of the work you did, this further reinforces the position that the work product was not solely owned by you. Curt Incorrect. That work was done by me solely for the greater good of the climbing community. RC had nothing to do with it, and if you care to recall the same results and information (as well as the solicitation for funds for further testing) was made available in ST, MP, SP, Gunks, CC, etc. RC has no more a claim on it than any of the other sites, which in total amounts to zero. Work done by me, with funds solicited by me on multiple venues and with no official backing from anyone is pretty much the definition of work product that I can claim ownership of. Are you saying that (2) above is false? This was a claim made by notapplicable--that money was contributed to purchase Aliens for at least some of your tests. Curt I am saying that funds were solicited by me on RC, Gunks, ST, MP, SP, CC and possibly several other sites.
And those people were not paying you consulting fees to perform proprietary tests for them. They were contributing to a program of testing and public disclosure of the test results. They had every reason to expect that the information would be published, as you promised, and where you published, and not be capriciously withdrawn at some later date.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 9:42 PM
Post #49 of 157
(6352 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: DDT and Mods- It would seem that a user has taken it upon themselves to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS to remove my content from this site. It is my content to remove and regardless of other users' sense of ownership of it it is my right to remove it. Bulk quoting of it in an attempt to prevent me from exercising this right is wholly inappropriate and I request that posts quoting my material from the point where it was made known I would be removing it (post dated Aug 12, 2010, 11:18 AM) onwards be removed and it be made clear that such behavior will not be tolerated. Your understanding in this matter is greatly appreciated. -aric. So, you not only want the right to delete your own content, but to have content removed from other user's posts? That's quite amazing. Curt When said posts are being done explicitly to prevent me from exercising my rights under the TOS, yes. The posts in question are not part of the original discussions and contain no new content, so therefore are being done specifically to deny me my rights under the TOS and should be removed. I would also point out that posts I had removed yesterday are now popping back up, which means that another user is pulling copies of my posts from their browser cache to quote them back into the threads. Another user presuming to have a greater right to the usage of my content than I do is in violation of both the letter and spirit of the TOS. EDIT- I was incorrect that the user was pulling them from his browser cache. Apparently he's getting them from Google Cache instead (according to a PM from the user in question), which in my mind blows a hole in any argument based upon loss of value to the community, as it is clearly still available elsewhere. It's only available in google cache for a matter of hours to days, which is a fatal blow to your own argument, since the only way to keep that material available to the community is to promptly retrieve and repost it somewhere. Jay
Which brings us full circle: Who owns control of content I create? The TOS says I do, and another user quoting the content back in well after my removing it violates that right granted me by the TOS. As such these posts are inappropriate and should be removed.
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 9:46 PM
Post #50 of 157
(6484 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: curt wrote: adatesman wrote: curt wrote: 1) The fact that you were acting not just as an individual but in the capacity of the Lab Forum editor for RC.com brings into question whether the content you posted there is truly yours alone. 2) If money was solicited to enable any of the work you did, this further reinforces the position that the work product was not solely owned by you. Curt Incorrect. That work was done by me solely for the greater good of the climbing community. RC had nothing to do with it, and if you care to recall the same results and information (as well as the solicitation for funds for further testing) was made available in ST, MP, SP, Gunks, CC, etc. RC has no more a claim on it than any of the other sites, which in total amounts to zero. Work done by me, with funds solicited by me on multiple venues and with no official backing from anyone is pretty much the definition of work product that I can claim ownership of. Are you saying that (2) above is false? This was a claim made by notapplicable--that money was contributed to purchase Aliens for at least some of your tests. Curt I am saying that funds were solicited by me on RC, Gunks, ST, MP, SP, CC and possibly several other sites. And those people were not paying you consulting fees to perform proprietary tests for them. They were contributing to a program of testing and public disclosure of the test results. They had every reason to expect that the information would be published, as you promised, and where you published, and not be capriciously withdrawn at some later date. Jay
At no point has that information not been publicly available. As I mentioned earlier, it was cross posted on all of the major climbing sites. In fact, I reposted the final product of it (the report sent to the UIAA and CSPC) yet again on ST just a few weeks ago. Link
No kindly leave me alone JT, as I have no wish to get into yet another argument with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
