|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 15, 2010, 9:47 PM
Post #51 of 157
(5361 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: 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.
The only thing that's going in circles are your own arguments. You're simultaneously that (1) since your posts can be retrieved from google cache and reposted, you should be able to delete your posts; and (2) no one should be allowed to repost your posts.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 9:49 PM
Post #52 of 157
(5359 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: 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. The only thing that's going in circles are your own arguments. You're simultaneously that (1) since your posts can be retrieved from google cache and reposted, you should be able to delete your posts; and (2) no one should be allowed to repost your posts. Jay
JT, I have no interest in discussing this (let alone anything) with you, so kindly drop it and go find something else to do.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 15, 2010, 9:58 PM
Post #53 of 157
(5350 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: 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. The only thing that's going in circles are your own arguments. You're simultaneously that (1) since your posts can be retrieved from google cache and reposted, you should be able to delete your posts; and (2) no one should be allowed to repost your posts. Jay JT, I have no interest in discussing this (let alone anything) with you, so kindly drop it and go find something else to do.
No, I won't drop out of it, as I have an interest in discussing it.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 10:00 PM
Post #54 of 157
(5348 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
davidnn5 wrote: 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).
I would ask you look at the bigger picture: RC is a for-profit entity based upon ad-generated revenue. I believe my content to be a major draw for the site and as I do not appreciate how this was handled by management I have decided to remove my posts and thereby deny the for-profit entity the ability to continue making money off of my work. Yes, this puts the mods in a no-win position but frankly I can't honestly say its one I created. No need to rehash the reasons for this, so moving on....
Seeing as I intend to make the bulk of that information available elsewhere (some of which already is), the community as a whole is merely inconvenienced in the short term for something that will ultimately be of greater value. And on a side note, I find this whole issue regarding ownership of content and fair use rather interesting. Its far from being a black and white issue in general, but in this case it is clear that my rights per the TOS for the site are being inappropriately and willfully violated by another user.
|
|
|
|
|
climbs4fun
Moderator
Aug 15, 2010, 10:00 PM
Post #55 of 157
(5347 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2003
Posts: 9679
|
adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: 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. The only thing that's going in circles are your own arguments. You're simultaneously that (1) since your posts can be retrieved from google cache and reposted, you should be able to delete your posts; and (2) no one should be allowed to repost your posts. Jay JT, I have no interest in discussing this (let alone anything) with you, so kindly drop it and go find something else to do.
Aric, we all know that isn't going to happen. The more you respond to him, the more he will continue to respond in turn. I say this not as a mod, but as a bystander. The ball in your court as to whether it gets dropped by JT or not. (mod hat back on) Your request has been noted and is being discussed. I suspect that you will have an answer by tomorrow therefore negating the further need for you to defend your argument here.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 15, 2010, 10:02 PM
Post #56 of 157
(5341 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: 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...
I agree with you here--no problem.
adatesman wrote: ...and another user quoting the content back in well after my removing it violates that right granted me by the TOS...
To me, at least, this is far less clear. I am glad to see (as per Kel's post above) that site management will, in the short term, make a decision.
Curt
(This post was edited by curt on Aug 15, 2010, 10:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 15, 2010, 10:05 PM
Post #57 of 157
(5337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
adatesman wrote: 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.
Like I said (or tried to, despite a typo), the contributors to your testing from rc.com had a right to expect that you would publish the data here, as you promised, and not capriciously erase it at a later date.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 10:05 PM
Post #58 of 157
(5337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
Thanks for letting me know its being looked into, C4F. And there's exactly zero chance of JT sucking me into yet another argument, so no worries there. My last request that he drop it was as far as I was going to take it.
I'll also be removing myself from this thread, as I have no further points to make and need to get back to the task at hand since I now know its being discussed in the Mod forum.
-a.
{edit to add italicized portion}
(This post was edited by adatesman on Aug 15, 2010, 10:12 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
silascl
Aug 15, 2010, 10:06 PM
Post #59 of 157
(5334 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 14, 2006
Posts: 225
|
adatesman wrote: davidnn5 wrote: 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). I would ask you look at the bigger picture: RC is a for-profit entity based upon ad-generated revenue. I believe my content to be a major draw for the site and as I do not appreciate how this was handled by management I have decided to remove my posts and thereby deny the for-profit entity the ability to continue making money off of my work. Yes, this puts the mods in a no-win position but frankly I can't honestly say its one I created. No need to rehash the reasons for this, so moving on.... Seeing as I intend to make the bulk of that information available elsewhere (some of which already is), the community as a whole is merely inconvenienced in the short term for something that will ultimately be of greater value. And on a side note, I find this whole issue regarding ownership of content and fair use rather interesting. Its far from being a black and white issue in general, but in this case it is clear that my rights per the TOS for the site are being inappropriately and willfully violated by another user.
When you put it that way it's pretty clear that you should delete and move on. If you feel wronged by RC.com management then all the other arguments are not really important.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 15, 2010, 10:16 PM
Post #60 of 157
(5317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
adatesman wrote: davidnn5 wrote: 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). I would ask you look at the bigger picture: RC is a for-profit entity based upon ad-generated revenue. I believe my content to be a major draw for the site and as I do not appreciate how this was handled by management I have decided to remove my posts and thereby deny the for-profit entity the ability to continue making money off of my work. Yes, this puts the mods in a no-win position but frankly I can't honestly say its one I created. No need to rehash the reasons for this, so moving on...
I think it's laughable that you think so highly of your contributions that you actually believe their removal will have any financial impact on this website. Additionally, it's about time you took some responsibility for your own actions instead of playing the victim/martyr card once more. This is a situation that you are solely responsible for creating.
adatesman wrote: Seeing as I intend to make the bulk of that information available elsewhere (some of which already is), the community as a whole is merely inconvenienced in the short term for something that will ultimately be of greater value. And on a side note, I find this whole issue regarding ownership of content and fair use rather interesting. Its far from being a black and white issue in general...
If you would have stopped right there on this point, I would agree with you.
Curt
(This post was edited by curt on Aug 15, 2010, 10:23 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 15, 2010, 10:23 PM
Post #61 of 157
(5308 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
silascl wrote: adatesman wrote: I would ask you look at the bigger picture: RC is a for-profit entity based upon ad-generated revenue. I believe my content to be a major draw for the site and as I do not appreciate how this was handled by management I have decided to remove my posts and thereby deny the for-profit entity the ability to continue making money off of my work. When you put it that way it's pretty clear that you should delete and move on. If you feel wronged by RC.com management then all the other arguments are not really important.
The counter-argument is that he should have thought about the risks and rewards of contributing material to a for-profit entity, then accepting a position of authority with that profit-making entity, and then abusing that authority.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
adatesman
Aug 15, 2010, 10:32 PM
Post #62 of 157
(5299 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479
|
Sorry to go back on my word on not posting more, C4F, but I don't know that you guys would notice that the user in question has now moved on to saving copies of my posts elsewhere and providing links to the original material. As this is merely a continuation of the earlier conduct in a different form I find it objectionable as well.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 15, 2010, 10:32 PM
Post #63 of 157
(5298 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
climbs4fun wrote: adatesman wrote: jt512 wrote: adatesman wrote: 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. The only thing that's going in circles are your own arguments. You're simultaneously that (1) since your posts can be retrieved from google cache and reposted, you should be able to delete your posts; and (2) no one should be allowed to repost your posts. Jay JT, I have no interest in discussing this (let alone anything) with you, so kindly drop it and go find something else to do. Aric, we all know that isn't going to happen. The more you respond to him, the more he will continue to respond in turn. I say this not as a mod, but as a bystander. The ball in your court as to whether it gets dropped by JT or not. (mod hat back on) Your request has been noted and is being discussed. I suspect that you will have an answer by tomorrow therefore negating the further need for you to defend your argument here.
Kel,
This seems to me to be a somewhat unique situation, but I also think the mods/management need to be careful of establishing any unintended precedent by granting Aric's request. For example, I think Dingus would be fully within his right to have his long-standing request for deletion of all his content (by site management) granted, if Aric's similar request is granted.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Aug 15, 2010, 10:44 PM
Post #64 of 157
(5287 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
adatesman wrote: Sorry to go back on my word on not posting more, C4F, but I don't know that you guys would notice that the user in question has now moved on to saving copies of my posts elsewhere and providing links to the original material. As this is merely a continuation of the earlier conduct in a different form I find it objectionable as well.
I've found it to be more efficient and seeing as how you have several days head start, I'm just doing my best to play catch up. As you'll notice, some pages already appear to be gone for good.
|
|
|
|
|
Arrogant_Bastard
Aug 15, 2010, 10:48 PM
Post #65 of 157
(5284 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2007
Posts: 19994
|
adatesman wrote: I would ask you look at the bigger picture: RC is a for-profit entity based upon ad-generated revenue. I believe my content to be a major draw for the site...
I hear you on that topic. The BET and affiliated threads have been a fortuitous element to RC.knob, both through an enormous amount of click traffic and a possibly larger amount of invaluable wisdom with which we have to share; the ROFLcats are just bonus. Although I don't agree with the totalitarian government here and the banz patrol, and certainly don't want to support their maniacal visions of net domination, to delete my posts would be to deny generations of climbers a foundation of ideals for which they may live their lives.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 15, 2010, 10:49 PM
Post #66 of 157
(5281 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
Not that I actually have a vote, but after living through this debacle, I think I've changed my mind about deletability of posts. I'm beginning to believe that it would be preferable, that after a certain period of time, for posts to become uneditable and undeletable. Prospective forum members should give due consideration to the consequences of contributing to the forums in advance. And should they decide to contribute, they should be aware that their contributions will become part of a permanent record, after a reasonable period of time (perhaps a few days) allowed for correction of typos, etc. The integrity of the forums should trump a user's ability to corrupt threads by editing or deleting their posts, for whatever reason, later.
Jay
Copy PMed to DDT.
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 15, 2010, 10:52 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Aug 15, 2010, 10:59 PM
Post #67 of 157
(5266 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
jt512 wrote: Not that I actually have a vote, but after living through this debacle, I think I've changed my mind about deletability of posts. I'm beginning to believe that it would be preferable, that after a certain period of time, for posts to become uneditable and undeletable. Prospective forum members should give due consideration to the consequences of contributing to the forums in advance. And should they decide to contribute, they should be aware that their contributions will become part of a permanent record, after a reasonable period of time (perhaps a few days) allowed for correction of typos, etc. The integrity of the forums should trump a user's ability to corrupt threads by editing or deleting their posts, for whatever reason, later. Jay Copy PMed to DDT.
So, are you suggesting that the OG BET be unlocked?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 15, 2010, 11:00 PM
Post #68 of 157
(5262 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
jt512 wrote: Not that I actually have a vote, but after living through this debacle, I think I've changed my mind about deletability of posts. I'm beginning to believe that it would be preferable, that after a certain period of time, for posts to become uneditable and undeletable. Prospective forum members should give due consideration to the consequences of contributing to the forums in advance. And should they decide to contribute, they should be aware that their contributions will become a permanent part of the database, after a reasonable period of time (perhaps a few days) allowed for correction of typos, etc. The integrity of the forums should trump a user's ability to corrupt threads by editing or deleting their posts, for whatever reason, later. Jay Copy PMed to DDT.
I agree with that. In addition, while briefly discussing this with Lisa (who is an attorney and who has done quite a bit of copyright and intellectual property work) she pointed this out:
Wikipedia wrote: Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term fair use originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright...
Pretty clearly, under the Fair Use doctrine, quoting the posts of another individual for purposes of "commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship" is fine--and does not appear to violate any rights of the original copyright holder.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Aug 15, 2010, 11:32 PM
Post #69 of 157
(5243 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
curt wrote: jt512 wrote: Not that I actually have a vote, but after living through this debacle, I think I've changed my mind about deletability of posts. I'm beginning to believe that it would be preferable, that after a certain period of time, for posts to become uneditable and undeletable. Prospective forum members should give due consideration to the consequences of contributing to the forums in advance. And should they decide to contribute, they should be aware that their contributions will become a permanent part of the database, after a reasonable period of time (perhaps a few days) allowed for correction of typos, etc. The integrity of the forums should trump a user's ability to corrupt threads by editing or deleting their posts, for whatever reason, later. Jay Copy PMed to DDT. I agree with that. In addition, while briefly discussing this with Lisa (who is an attorney and who has done quite a bit of copyright and intellectual property work) she pointed this out: Wikipedia wrote: Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term fair use originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright... Pretty clearly, under the Fair Use doctrine, quoting the posts of another individual for purposes of "commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship" is fine--and does not appear to violate any rights of the original copyright holder. Curt
good find. I had totally forgotten about that.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Aug 15, 2010, 11:44 PM
Post #70 of 157
(5234 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
Curt, your Wikipedia quote, unless I am mistaken, seems to say that what NA is doing is not covered under fair use.
|
|
|
|
|
climbs4fun
Moderator
Aug 16, 2010, 12:26 AM
Post #71 of 157
(5218 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2003
Posts: 9679
|
jt512 wrote: Not that I actually have a vote, but after living through this debacle, I think I've changed my mind about deletability of posts. I'm beginning to believe that it would be preferable, that after a certain period of time, for posts to become uneditable and undeletable. Prospective forum members should give due consideration to the consequences of contributing to the forums in advance. And should they decide to contribute, they should be aware that their contributions will become part of a permanent record, after a reasonable period of time (perhaps a few days) allowed for correction of typos, etc. The integrity of the forums should trump a user's ability to corrupt threads by editing or deleting their posts, for whatever reason, later. Jay Copy PMed to DDT.
I never thought I'd see the day when I agreed with you. I was wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Aug 16, 2010, 12:32 AM
Post #72 of 157
(5208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
johnwesely wrote: Curt, your Wikipedia quote, unless I am mistaken, seems to say that what NA is doing is not covered under fair use.
Unless you're an expert copyright attorney, I'll go with the legal opinion I have. If you have a legal basis for your position, please advise. Thanks.
Curt
(This post was edited by curt on Aug 16, 2010, 12:39 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Aug 16, 2010, 12:43 AM
Post #73 of 157
(5198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
If I were Aric, I'd be in contact with a lawyer over notapplicables behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Aug 16, 2010, 1:02 AM
Post #75 of 157
(5515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
curt wrote: johnwesely wrote: Curt, your Wikipedia quote, unless I am mistaken, seems to say that what NA is doing is not covered under fair use. Unless you're an expert copyright attorney, I'll go with the legal opinion I have. If you have a legal basis for your position, please advise. Thanks. Curt
I probably should have phrased that as a question because that is what it really was.
wikipedia wrote: Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.
It seems that NA is not ostensibly doing any of those things because he is not attaching any of his own content to the quotes. He is implicitly doing the last three, but is that enough? I am curious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
