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

I probably should have phrased that as a question because that is what it really was.


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.

However, NA and others have indeed attached past comments to much of the work that Aric is currently deleting. Without preserving Aric's comments, much of those posts become nonsensical and lacking in context. Therefore, quoting it so that prior criticism and commentary maintain their context would seem to be a fair application of the Fair Use doctrine.

Curt

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.

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.

...I have decided to remove my posts and thereby deny the for-profit entity the ability to continue making money off of my work.

...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...

...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 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.

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

Aric,

Our Terms of Service (TOS) do not grant you any "right" to remove "your content". Nor do we make any claims, grant any rights, or endeavor to enforce a third party's rights regarding ownership and copyright of content being submitted to our the site. We provide the platform, and we enforce rules to ensure orderly communication, but you are responsible for your communications and the consequences thereof.

While we do provide functionality to edit or delete submissions made from your account, we do not guarantee that you will be able to remove all traces of those submissions in future. There are just too many ways in which posted content can survive and propagate on the internet, as has been pointed out by other users in this thread - from being quoted in other users' posts to being retrieved from Google or someone's local browser cache. That's the nature of the internet. If you put something out there it's bound to live on in one way or another. Just as a letter published in your local newspaper cannot be un-published.

So if you want no traces of your submissions, you should never have posted it in the first place. Even our Forum Rules remind you that "you are responsible for your own communications and are responsible for the consequences of posting those communications". There is no way we will endeavor to regulate or police that.

This is a matter to be resolved between you and the other user.

Daniel

This guy is a complete dickhead for doing what he'd done. This is not his content. Please delete his posts and sanction his ass.

DMT

Notapplicable's quote are malicious in intent...

...the purpose is to take that which is not his.

I've been up all night with bronchitis and back pain, so I'm going to address this only briefly, for now. I believe that there are some rather deep questions here, which I'll respond to more fully when I'm better rested and less medicated. But, I believe a brief reply now is called for in order to balance Dingus's and Angry's posts.


No, they are not. I see no evidence of a history of animosity between Aric and Notapplicable that would lead to such a conclusion.


No. As far as I can tell—and I've discussed it with him—Notapplicable's purpose is to preserve important information for the benefit of the climbing community. I, too, have preserved some of Aric's most valuable material, by downloading it to my computer. I'm still thinking about what, if anything, to do with it, with one possibility being to re-publish it on the web, possibly on this website.

The issues are subtler and deeper than this, but for the time being, let me ask you this: Who owns information, once it is published on the Internet, the poster or the world?

Jay

but for the time being, let me ask you this: Who owns information, once it is published on the Internet, the poster or the world?

Jay

If he takes Adatesman's material against Adatesman's express and stated wishes HE IS A THIEF.

I don't believe his altruistic motives. Flat out do not believe him. Its just plain ole theft.

DMT

Thieves generally are generally motivated by personal gain.

Jay

User Requested Post Removal Policy
As an open public forum user, you are responsible for your own communications and are responsible for the consequences of posting those communications. We will usually not honor requests for post removals or editing. You are welcome to edit or remove your own posts.

Aric, I understand that you're tired of this, but frankly, you should just ignore it. I cannot and I will not stop users from posting within the forum rules and terms of service, just because you don't like it.

The post you quoted above did not break any rule. It's not rude, it does not attack you, it's not verbally abusive. At best it's sarcastic. Perhaps our definitions of what a "personal attack" is differ. To be clear, here is what I see as "personal attack":

* F... you, you<expletive>
* You are dumb/stupid/short/fat/etc.

DDT

Moderators will endeavor to provide fair warning regarding behavior that might warrant their intervention. Failure to heed warnings from the moderators is grounds for suspension of posting privileges. We do however reserve the right to remove any post when these rules are abused or policies violated without prior notice or explanation. If you repeatedly violate any of these rules or otherwise seek to disrupt the board then the administrators can suspend your posting privileges or disable your account at their discretion.

Any abuse directed at our volunteer moderation team in the forums or via private message, including defying the moderators to suspend or ban a member, may result in an immediate suspension or ban. "Gripe" threads about any action from a moderator including "Where did my post go?" posts will be removed. If you have questions about a moderator's action and they did not provide a reason for the intervention, please contact them via private message.

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.

Notapplicable's quote are malicious in intent - the purpose is to take that which is not his. The posts should be deleted and notapplicable should be sanctioned.

DMT

I'm just curious Dingus, how do you know it is malicious and what is N/A's gain?

I'm assuming that since you made such a declarative statement that you actually have a sound reason for it. If not, well, it simply sounds like a kid stomping his feet. I don't mean for that to be rude, really, just want to be clear that without knowing why you think this is so your statements don't mean much.

Please explain your statements. And to be clear, I'm not asking you to repeat "the purpose is to take that which is not his." I'm asking how you know this.

I thought NA was being a dick when he started saving posts/threads from the lab that were very short or had little to no data. He was trying to preserve 100% of arics remaining posts without a valid reason to preserve them.

I'm with dingus. Maybe the site can't do anything about the stuff he hosted offsite, but NA's behavior in the face of repeated requests by aric is certainly harassment. All those reposts should be deleted and he should get the BANZ.