|
dingus
May 13, 2009, 2:12 AM
Post #101 of 174
(2943 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
May 13, 2009, 2:22 AM
Post #102 of 174
(2935 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
dingus wrote: What none of you are willing to acknowlegde or speak to is this.... this site is built on user content. Its WORTH is user content. USER... content. USER Not jung. Not rc.com. Not some unpaid moderator. USER. It is my contention that if you want my content you will give me the tools to manage that content. No tools no content. That's it. Its a nutshell issue for me. If I cannot delete my own content then it isn't mine. I know that my content has value. But that isn't the point. The point is - its MY content. When others purposely seek to take that control from me they are stealing what is mine. Fuck that. DMT
I'll be happy to address this issue and I think it's an important one. All I ask is that you answer two questions first so that I can do a thorough job.
1. Should an individual have the same control over all their posts or only ones that relate a personal experience or contain some form of art they crafted.
2. If your request to have all your posts deleted was honored, would you have the quoted portions of your posts that reside within the posts of others removed along with the original posts?
|
|
|
|
|
Terry2124
May 13, 2009, 2:32 AM
Post #103 of 174
(2926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 22, 2009
Posts: 223
|
No, Copyright laws apply.
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
May 13, 2009, 2:33 AM
Post #104 of 174
(2926 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
dingus wrote: My stories mean FAR MORE TO ME than all the climbing gear I have ever owned or ever will. Its clear to me you don't understand the well from which my stories are drawn. 
dingus wrote: Ever read Steinbeck's "The Chrysanthemums?"
dingus wrote: She shared a piece of her soul and it was treated like a possession or worse, like garbage, by the one in whom she invested trust.
|
|
|
|
|
kylekienitz
May 13, 2009, 2:59 AM
Post #105 of 174
(2915 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2005
Posts: 256
|
In reply to: No, Copyright laws apply.
Yes, I know they DO, but there are some very interesting points about copyright laws made in the film that I was previously unaware of. Though copyright is surely useful for protecting rights it is much less useful in allowing culture to progress. Everything is based from something that came before it like jobs, ideas, activities, etc. In the same way, things that get copyrighted (music, words, movies, medicine, research, intellect) are also derived from earlier work. No story is original, no idea is original and no song is original -- they are built on the foundations (sometimes floors or MANY floors) below them.
I would argue that the sense of ownership in the GROUP or community is not the problem. It is the sense of ownership of the individual. We are all part of the same thing building off of the floors below us, and hopefully the next community will collectively build on our work, legally or not.
just my opinion.
(This post was edited by kylekienitz on May 13, 2009, 3:00 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Terry2124
May 13, 2009, 3:02 AM
Post #106 of 174
(2910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 22, 2009
Posts: 223
|
kylekienitz wrote: In reply to: No, Copyright laws apply. Yes, I know they DO, but there are some very interesting points about copyright laws made in the film that I was previously unaware of. Though copyright is surely useful for protecting rights it is much less useful in allowing culture to progress. Everything is based from something that came before it like jobs, ideas, activities, etc. In the same way, things that get copyrighted (music, words, movies, medicine, research, intellect) are also derived from earlier work. No story is original, no idea is original and no song is original -- they are built on the foundations (sometimes floors or MANY floors) below them. I would argue that the sense of ownership in the GROUP or community is not the problem. It is the sense of ownership of the individual. We are all part of the same thing building off of the floors below us, and hopefully the next community will collectively build on our work, legally or not. just my opinion.
Too much protectionism, if people actually give credit to the author and gave reference things would be better. People like to copy and say its their own.
|
|
|
|
|
kylekienitz
May 13, 2009, 3:12 AM
Post #107 of 174
(2904 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2005
Posts: 256
|
Terry2124 wrote: Too much protectionism, if people actually give credit to the author and gave reference things would be better. People like to copy and say its their own.
I agree -- respect is completely necessary if using someone else's contribution specifically. I still think the issue lies largely in an inflated sense of personal property though. This is especially true of someone who uses someone's material and then tries to pass it off as "original." If you believe that we are all part of a collective unconscious, then there really is no "original" anything.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
May 13, 2009, 6:55 AM
Post #108 of 174
(2879 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
bill413 wrote: 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
That is the crux of the issue isn't it. In determining which constitutes the greater ethical violation, I still say it all goes back to intent and reasonable expectation.
By and large this site is not intended as a venue for stand alone contributions, it is intended for the creation of coherent lines of collective discourse. Denying an individual the right of wholesale deletion of their contributions is an unfortunate compromising of their rights, I freely admit that. At the same time though, casting the contributions of others in to the winds of contextual irrelevance by deleting large chunks of the archive show a profound lack of respect for the work of others (an issue which Dingus has neglected to address). Within the context of this site, the latter is the greater ethical violation by simple virtue of the nature of the venue.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
May 13, 2009, 7:01 AM
Post #109 of 174
(2873 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
ptlong wrote: 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.
A person can not edit or delete the portions of their posts that have been incorporated in to the quote strings of other users and that is central to this debate. A person is not currently granted wholesale removal of their posts from this site.
|
|
|
|
|
quiteatingmysteak
May 13, 2009, 7:09 AM
Post #110 of 174
(2862 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 804
|
This is way more drama than I would ever expect from a thread titled "Corn Eyed Butt Snakes."
Here's the thing, gays. Dingus has every right of when and when not to post his stories. Thats a FACT. If you bug him, he won't post 'em here. If they were worth quoting and preserving, then you are probably shooting yourself in the foot. However these are hardly knockout punches he's pulling. Dingus, you are a great writer and I enjoy reading your stories, but whatever thread they are in will eventually die. Its a short story, fer chrissake. You need a whole book of 'em to make em marketable for a reason.
Lay off with the 'I'm gonna quit the team if you guys keep making fun of me,' its unbecoming of such a pretty young lady. Some super old dude said something about not casting yer pearls before swine or some such nonsense. Well this is RC.COM. Did you really think you would find the cheap bliss of artistic integrity? What do they put in the water on the east side?
Look, be a dude for me and slap some of these yarns into a sweater. You make a book, I promise you right here and now (manhood and poop stories at stake) that I will buy it. I'm good for it. But lay off the xanax and stop worrying about yer shit stories. Ever hear of the Streisand effect? If you hadn't replied to these punks this thread would have been buried and forgotton. You could have killed it by not stirring it up.
But here we are, talking about your poops and farts.
You're right, though. Your farts are pretty g-damn powerful, enough to get a group of keyboard wrestlers from around the continent throwing down some serious verbage.
And that, my friends, is the internets.
|
|
|
|
|
nika
May 13, 2009, 8:42 AM
Post #112 of 174
(2841 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2003
Posts: 71
|
dingus wrote: bill413 wrote: 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. I find that to be a remarkable and depressing statement. My stories mean FAR MORE TO ME than all the climbing gear I have ever owned or ever will. Its clear to me you don't understand the well from which my stories are drawn. Even a light hearted fart story... dude, that shit HAPPENED. The story is REAL. The story is a piece of ME. Cams are just hardware. I write from the heart. I reveal pieces of myself not through climbing gear, I do it with words. DMT
Well now you're talking about moral rights -- "Droits d'Auteur" under French law. US copyright law has never recognized French-style moral rights -- for good reason.
Someone said that we should be talking not about what's legal (taken care of by the TOS anyway) and instead what's acceptable/right. Well, then, in terms of acceptability, I find your "mine, mine, MINE!"ing childish, first of all, and second, confusing. I really actually don't get why you would take the time to put your little stories up on a discussion board and then take them back down. Trying to create copyright law drama?
Also, saying intellectual property is the same as real property or personal property is an extremely limited, and really maybe even entirely inapt, analogy.
(This post was edited by nika on May 13, 2009, 8:46 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 13, 2009, 11:09 AM
Post #113 of 174
(2828 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capt_Dirty_Pantaloons
May 13, 2009, 12:58 PM
Post #114 of 174
(2819 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2008
Posts: 37
|
Maybe I am missing something, but you keep insisting that you have the right to do with your content what you want. I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with that statement directly.
I think it is a matter of when does sole ownership of the content cease to be yours exclusively and when does the ownership extend to the community at large.
Does an author have the right to walk in to a book store, take his book off the shelf and walk out?
I think when you post in a public forum that anyone with a puter and a connection can access, the story ceases to be just yours solely and partial ownership is given to the community.
I believe the truth of the matter is there were some rules about posting you didn't agree with, and some mod upset you. You high jacked this thread by posting what appears to be a great story, then deleting. Your point is proven. You have the power to delete your threads and ultimate control over what you post is yours. That and a token will get you on the bus.
I for one am just a little disappointed that I didn't get to read it, and that I have missed out on a bunch of crap in the pants stories.
I have yet to drop the kids off at the rock, but after a night of drinking and a black out did wake up to a cold chocolate pudding mess in the bed.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
May 13, 2009, 2:23 PM
Post #116 of 174
(2791 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
I would, absolutely, purchase a printed version of Dingus' works. I wish he would think about publishing, even through a Print on Demand medium like CafePress.
|
|
|
|
|
nika
May 13, 2009, 2:54 PM
Post #117 of 174
(2753 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2003
Posts: 71
|
dingus wrote: I don't care what the TOS says. The TOS was imposed by commerical operators who came here long after I did. Fuck em. This is not about rc.com - as I said, jung and I reached a seperate peace. You will note a lack of management participation in this thread for example, and continued politeness on my part. Maybe I could get a quoted story of mine deleted, if I asked. That's not the point. Why should I have to ASK to delete my own material on a user content site? Its MY material.
Because, by signing up/posting here, you've clicked "I agree" to the TOS. That's why. Just because you're old doesn't mean that you get a special TOS, just for you.
And if there wasn't a TOS that dealt with this situation, this site completely wouldn't exist because moody people like you would be initiating copyright infringement lawsuits left and right.
dingus wrote: I plan to continue to (try to) maintain my ownership and control of my data. If I choose to share something the length of time I'm willing to do so is entirely my choice. None of you have any business interfering with that.
Here's the deal. You can't reasonably expect copyright law to help you, because you've waived some of that by agreeing to the TOS. So that leaves you with simply hoping that people will respect your wishes re quoting. But why on earth, if you feel so strongly about maintaining control over your "data," would you post something online, especially on this particular forum? You've clearly been around for a while. You clearly post here a lot. You know how the quote function works. You also know that a huge number of the posters on this site are immature and contrarian. So I'm not sure why you on earth you would expect people to agree to not quote you here.
It's hard to take your concerns that seriously when you're this irrational. If you feel so strongly about holding on to your "data" don't put it online!
And I have no idea how auto insurance is related to any of this.
|
|
|
|
|
crankinv9
May 13, 2009, 3:05 PM
Post #118 of 174
(2739 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 713
|
I'm with you on this Dingus (not that you need or even want my support)
it's your stuff, you should be able to do with as you please , before-during-after posting, case closed
TOS is bullshit and it is routinely ignored so..fuck it
I regard these postings as performance art, if you weren't there for the performance , then you missed out
|
|
|
|
|
Terry2124
May 13, 2009, 3:31 PM
Post #119 of 174
(2715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 22, 2009
Posts: 223
|
happiegrrrl wrote: I would, absolutely, purchase a printed version of Dingus' works. I wish he would think about publishing, even through a Print on Demand medium like CafePress.
He writes good stuff, I will not deny that. I'm sure many people would want to purchase his work.
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
May 13, 2009, 3:32 PM
Post #120 of 174
(2710 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
angry wrote: quiteatingmysteak wrote: This is way more drama than I would ever expect from a thread titled "Corn Eyed Butt Snakes." Noted
hehe.
but that title did serve one useful purpose: it guaranteed i missed all of this drama.
|
|
|
|
|
ptlong
May 13, 2009, 4:58 PM
Post #121 of 174
(2645 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2007
Posts: 418
|
notapplicable wrote: A person can not edit or delete the portions of their posts that have been incorporated in to the quote strings of other users and that is central to this debate. A person is not currently granted wholesale removal of their posts from this site.
A person can remove all of their own posts. Why not?
It would be possible to construct RC.com to disallow editing and removal of posts. The old days of rec.climbing were like that. You could try and cancel a post but it wasn't very effective.
As for quotes of their posts? No, of course not. Some quoting is expected. Full quoting just to be malicious is what is central to the debate. It isn't against the rules. You can do it. But it clearly will have an impact. Dingus has already responded to this much better than I can.
I appreciate Dingus's position. I've deleted posts and stories too. Mine aren't very good or very popular and (almost) nobody notices or cares. I've recieved a few emails from strangers and questions from friends as to why and I've tried to explain my reasons. If it became impossible or the "community" screamed in outrage I'd simply refrain from posting those things in the first place. The world keeps on spinning.
I copied the goat story onto my hard drive years ago when I first read it. I haven't actually looked at my copy since then because I've got parts of the tale carved into my brain. Funny that I'd reserve a piece of my skull for a goat-fart story! But on a number of occasions, a couple times when I was really upset about something, I've recalled excerpts of that story and ended up laughing until I cried.
Thanks Dingus!
|
|
|
|
|
apeman_e
May 13, 2009, 5:01 PM
Post #122 of 174
(2635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2008
Posts: 212
|
happiegrrrl wrote: I would, absolutely, purchase a printed version of Dingus' works. I wish he would think about publishing, even through a Print on Demand medium like CafePress.
+1
I'm a big dingus fan.
Please keep posting your great stories. They often speak to the heart of climbing for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
May 13, 2009, 5:50 PM
Post #123 of 174
(2597 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
angry wrote: Y'all are a bunch of corn eyed butt snakes. Bunch of retards.
Most insightful post in the whole goddamn thread. I knew there was a reason I stopped reading this site as regularly as I once did...
What could have been an amusing discussion of fucking fart stories turned into a giant douchebag wankfest about copyright and thought ownership. I do find it telling that, in his attempt to draw meaning to his masturbatory obsession over his little stories, Dingus invoked a fictional character who sounds like little more than an over-emotional bitch who got all pissy over a bundle of flowers.
We're talking about shitting your pants here, folks, lighten the fuck up. And quote the whiney little bitch next time - if he doesn't like it, he can stick to supertopo where everyone can jerk each other off instead of simply wanking in public.
|
|
|
|
|
no_email_entered
May 13, 2009, 6:01 PM
Post #124 of 174
(2807 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2008
Posts: 558
|
Valarc wrote: supertopo --- where everyone can jerk each other off instead of simply wanking in public.
i hear that cmac is making this their new slogan---
---i already have my t-shirt order in
|
|
|
|
|
pfwein
May 13, 2009, 6:07 PM
Post #125 of 174
(2791 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2009
Posts: 353
|
Valarc wrote: angry wrote: Y'all are a bunch of corn eyed butt snakes. Bunch of retards. Most insightful post in the whole goddamn thread. I knew there was a reason I stopped reading this site as regularly as I once did... What could have been an amusing discussion of fucking fart stories turned into a giant douchebag wankfest about copyright and thought ownership. I do find it telling that, in his attempt to draw meaning to his masturbatory obsession over his little stories, Dingus invoked a fictional character who sounds like little more than an over-emotional bitch who got all pissy over a bundle of flowers. We're talking about shitting your pants here, folks, lighten the fuck up. And quote the whiney little bitch next time - if he doesn't like it, he can stick to supertopo where everyone can jerk each other off instead of simply wanking in public.
But I disagree with Valarc--I find the discussion re: copyright/quasi-copyright/copyleft/TOC whatever to be much more interesting than the fart joke post (a genre in which I have zero interest) that apparently launched the discussion.
Anyone who claims that copyright infringement (and, more generally, intellectual property rights) are equivalent to tangible property rights needs a good smack down. One can draw analogies, but they are usually awful, cuz they sure ain't the same thing at all. If I give you my cam, I don't have it any more. If I tell you my story, I still have my story and can tell it to someone else. I'm not at all saying that authors shouldn't have control over their writings--it's just that whatever you think that control should be has little to do with the rights that owners of tangible property have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
