Thread: Copyright Ignorance Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026286
Posted by pererin (# 16956) on
:
We've had yet another thread spoiled by hostly copyright ignorance. Really, we need the Admins to bash some heads together on this one, but I will give as brief as possible a summary of what hosts need to know to avoid looking like jerks on this subject and bringing their positions into disrepute.
A quick look at any WHOIS site will give the location of this website as being in London. This means that English law applies.
Copyright in England and Wales is regulated under the Duration of Copyright and Rights in Performance Regulations 1995 (section 5 covers what's at issue here). What these did was to lengthen the period of copyright from being the author's death plus 50 years to author's death plus 70 years for works that were still in copyright at that time (if you think about it, that was a necessary safeguard, so that anyone who, say, published a hymnal between 1975 and 1994 wasn't deluged with retrospective copyright claims). The result of this is that until December 31st, 2015, we have a static copyright horizon: the work of any author who died in 1944 or earlier is in the public domain (with two exceptions: Crown Copyright and, rather absurdly, Peter Pan).
The result of this is that if someone posts an extract of any length from some literary work and quotes the author's death date as being 1944 or earlier (which is usually an easily-verified fact), there is no "potential copyright violation". Asserting this just makes you look woefully ill-informed, and everyone else is going to conclude that you are abusing your hostly immunity from being dragged to Hell to violate the 1st Commandment and be a complete jerk.
I am also alarmed that "fair dealing" as defined by the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 -- here, one presumes, for the purposes of criticism or review -- seems to have been misinterpreted into an unlinked-to policy (does it even exist outside someone's head, one may well wonder) that only restricts the quoting of any verse to two stanzas. If this is in fact the case, this both misinterprets the law in a way that is needlessly restrictive and that is dangerously loose. The legal tests of this are not about length of quotation in absolute terms, but rather:
a) that it's not a publication of someone else's pre-publication work without their permission;
b) that an adequate acknowledgement is provided;
c) that the quote is accompanied by some actual discussion to merit the quote (this is in practice the most important point, and the one that length obsessions most neglect); and:
d) that the length of the quotation is no more than is necessary for the discussion (which obviously could be far more or far less than two stanzas).
I can see the merits of a length policy on other grounds. If someone were, say, to post the entire text of William Tyndale's New Testament to this board, it would be extremely annoying to scroll past, and it could quite conceivably slow the Ship down (or in the worst case, crash the server). It would be an obvious case of being a jerk. But that really isn't about copyright in the slightest, and it is important that copyright isn't trivialized into some sort of pathetic elf'n'safety-style excuse.
So please, Admins, could you make sure that the Hosts are better informed on this subject?
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
Which thread are you talking about please?
Tubbs
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
So please, Admins, could you make sure that the Hosts are better informed on this subject?
No. We stand by our conservative approach to copyright.
Blithe assertions about jurisdiction are misguided, as our servers are not necessarily located in the UK. Likewise, our standards are both easy to understand and easy to enforce, unlike the often-arguable nature of constantly-shifting copyright laws.
Hopefully this makes you better-informed about The Ship of Fools.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Links are our friends.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
I for one see no problem in erring on the conservative side on this, just to be absolutely sure the Ship won't even have to bother consulting with a lawyer about anything. It's almost always easy enough to link the sorts of texts people tend to discuss here.
Quoting from academic works is sometimes the exception, in which case it makes sense to be conservative with the quoting, and, where possible, put it in your own words. It's rare that anyone would be quoting a book or article here and the discussion would hinge on the exact wording in a long excerpt.
IMO.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Most of the Hosts and Admins are not lawyers, and personally my knowledge of copyright law is (1) mostly dating from 1997, with some patchy updates on various occasions when my work has required it and (2) based on Australian law.
I think you're completely barking up the wrong tree to think that Hosts and Admins ought to be experts in this kind of thing.
I mean, how many people would know that Peter Pan is an exception to the normal rules? Even amongst UK lawyers, most of those who don't deal with intellectual property as a major part of their practice wouldn't be aware of something like that. Do you expect knowing that to be a qualification for hosting?
If you want to assert that we're ignorant and ill-informed by the standards you're setting, go ahead. It's true. But that's the point. Being ignorant and ill-informed, we'd much rather be wrong by forbidding things we don't have to forbid, instead of wrongly allowing things we shouldn't allow.
[ 22. September 2013, 01:36: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
By the way, here's a link to the thread I suspect we're actually talking about.
Describing the thread as spoiled is a bit much in my opinion. Seasick inserted a link to the full text of the hymn. In other words, no information has been lost at all.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Pererin, a lot of what you set out is highly debatable in many places where the Ship is read. It is unrealistic and unfair to expect the Hosts and Admins to be aware of all the detail of copyright law in England, let alone all these either places.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Before you think these exceptions will never be quoted on the ship, Copyright for King James Bible is vested in the Crown and still in force.
Jengie
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
I love the Ship and I would hate it to be shut down because someone had inadvertently broken copyright laws, and that would be the risk we'd run.
I don't think it would be fair on the Hosts and Admins to add to their responsibilities in this way. We might even have to double their pay ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
.
Also I am very impressed with myself beacuse I did know about the Peter Pan exception (whereas I have little knowledge of copyright in general.)
Huia
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
I gleaned the gist of pererin's post to suggest that the way that some of the mods apply this local interpretation of the law is a tad anally-retentive. It would be hard not to sympathise with that view. Sometimes it's like watching Arnold Rimmer in full flow.
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I gleaned the gist of pererin's post to suggest that the way that some of the mods apply this local interpretation of the law is a tad anally-retentive.
I think I'd go with 'consistent' myself.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I gleaned the gist of pererin's post to suggest that the way that some of the mods apply this local interpretation of the law is a tad anally-retentive. It would be hard not to sympathise with that view. Sometimes it's like watching Arnold Rimmer in full flow.
Serious question: As you so obviously hate the way the boards are run, why do you stay here?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Including a short extract and then linking to the main content is no hardship whatever. Clicking on said content is no hardship either.
In fact, long quotes are tedious - it's better to be able to choose to click the link and read on.
I agree with Firenze - the hosts are consistent with the Ship's copyright rules, and these rules make sense, considering the international nature of the Ship.
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
Let me just say that prior to ordination, I worked in the IP industry and have taken (and passed!) exams in British copyright law. I happen to think the Ship's policy is extremely sensible and am more than happy to apply it as best as I am able.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Sometimes it's like watching Arnold Rimmer in full flow.
That's Ace Rimmer to you.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Spike -
I don't hate the way the boards are run - don't know where you got that from. I think it's the best run board I've ever been on, and have said so before. Maybe you draw that conclusion from my reluctance to join in the bowing and scraping that occasionally goes on combined with my preparedness to point out what I consider to be failings, which you can take or leave, of course.
I worked for a very large company which was very well run. There were many sectors and departments, and they were well organised and generally well run. What I observed was that as personnel changed (and there was always a lot of churn) the efficiency of each department would vary. No matter how well-organised and designed the departmental structure was, and how effective the rules of operation were, the quality of the incumbents governed the quality of the output. When weaknesses became apparent, strong management was needed to make changes to remedy this.
I stay here because I generally enjoy reading the exchanges and discussions. I'm sorry you don't like me, which you've made apparent before, but that's how life is. I'm a gregarious sort in my own way, used to engaging with groups of people. Perhaps your life is different.
Firenze -
Regarding the interpretation of copyright law, I'm not allowed to comment on the only time that stroke has been pulled on me, but I will go as far as to say that it didn't comply with your suggestion of consistency.
RooK -
all I have to say to you is: smoke me a kipper.
▲
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Firenze -
Regarding the interpretation of copyright law, I'm not allowed to comment on the only time that stroke has been pulled on me, but I will go as far as to say that it didn't comply with your suggestion of consistency.
'I could have bore it with a thankful art. But the words...spoke...lambs could not forgive. No, Betsey!' said Mrs Gamp, in a violent burst of feeling, 'nor worms forget'.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Firenze -
Regarding the interpretation of copyright law, I'm not allowed to comment on the only time that stroke has been pulled on me, but I will go as far as to say that it didn't comply with your suggestion of consistency.
'I could have bore it with a thankful art. But the words...spoke...lambs could not forgive. No, Betsey!' said Mrs Gamp, in a violent burst of feeling, 'nor worms forget'.
Perhaps so, perhaps so.
I comfort myself that with all his "engaging" features (see what I did there?) I'm sure "He'd make a lovely corpse."
<sadface>
Still, that was in another country, and besides, etc. etc. etc.
▲
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I love the Ship and I would hate it to be shut down because someone had inadvertently broken copyright laws, and that would be the risk we'd run.
Even if no copyright is is broken if someone sues funds are needed to defend the case. If the Ship does not have those funds it could close down.
We must be cautious not only to be within the law, but not too close to the edges as to attract litigation. Caution is good.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Firenze -
Regarding the interpretation of copyright law, I'm not allowed to comment on the only time that stroke has been pulled on me, but I will go as far as to say that it didn't comply with your suggestion of consistency.
'I could have bore it with a thankful art. But the words...spoke...lambs could not forgive. No, Betsey!' said Mrs Gamp, in a violent burst of feeling, 'nor worms forget'.
Perhaps so, perhaps so.
I comfort myself that with all his "engaging" features (see what I did there?) I'm sure "He'd make a lovely corpse."
<sadface>
Still, that was in another country, and besides, etc. etc. etc.
*******
<tangent>
I am intrigued, what is the significance of the triangle at the end of your posts here ? </tangent>
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Nothing of significance, Dt, just something in place of a sig. It's an alt-code. Usually I have poetry or song in my sig, but if my muse is resting, this acts as a filler - kind of closes a post off.
I'm toying with something from Kathleen Edwards as a sig.
*******
(although it looks as though someone has disabled it - I'm sure there's a good mature reason)
Posted by Rev per Minute (# 69) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Let me just say that prior to ordination, I worked in the IP industry and have taken (and passed!) exams in British copyright law. I happen to think the Ship's policy is extremely sensible and am more than happy to apply it as best as I am able.
Speaking as someone who worked on IP policy and legislation in the UK and EU, I agree seasick's view and believe the Hosts' approach is correct. Copyright lawyers are particularly litigious and I think that the Ship cannot afford to be anything other than conservative in this area. As I understand the developing law on Internet violations of IP and other statute, location of server is not necessarily the key factor in deciding whose law applies.
However, I am not a lawyer, merely a civil servant, and YMMV.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
pererin--
--The Ship cannot afford legal trouble.
--Copyright owners can be very litigious.
--The H/As are all unpaid volunteers. They do occasionally have the responsibilities of day jobs to occupy them--and, once in a while, they even have lives. (H/As on the loose?)
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
To paraphrase a song* from the movie "Safari 3000":
H/As on the road, H/As on the road,
I'd rather see a rain of toads
Than hear that sad cry,
"H/As on the road"!
--Therefore, Shipmates do the responsible thing and post reasonably short quotes, with a link to where the quote and/or the source was found.
--It's sometimes a pain, but it works. And it's far better than having the Ship capsize due to a barrage of legal actions.
Read, learn, and inwardly digest. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
*Lyrics unavailable.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I worked for a very large company which was very well run. There were many sectors and departments, and they were well organised and generally well run. What I observed was that as personnel changed (and there was always a lot of churn) the efficiency of each department would vary. No matter how well-organised and designed the departmental structure was, and how effective the rules of operation were, the quality of the incumbents governed the quality of the output. When weaknesses became apparent, strong management was needed to make changes to remedy this.
And how does this uplifting experience apply to an organization entirely staffed and run by volunteers as opposed to personnel earning salaries and benefits?
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
I should have thought that whether one is a volunteer or salaried makes no great difference to one's efficiency. I speak as someone who has been a fairly incomptetent unpaid treasurer for two amateur organisations. To quote C.S.Lewis, who was apparently a bursar at one time for his college "No-one who was involved in the experience has had the slightest desire to repeat it."
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
I should have thought that whether one is a volunteer or salaried makes no great difference to one's efficiency.
Perhaps not, but it does make a very large difference to the hiring process and the selection criteria.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
While we're on the subject, there's something I'm not sure about with regard to the Ship's copyright policy. Are we on safe ground if we link to a site that may, itself, be in breach of copyright, or should we avoid such links, too? An obvious example would be a youtube clip of a copyright music recording.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Yes, you can post links to things posted elsewhere.
[ETA: Hosts will check that links actually go somewhere, and do not go to sites advocating illegal activity or directly to sites of a particularly objectionable nature, eg: explicit sexual content. Also, links to YouTube and similar can sometimes take a long time to load and run, adding to the time commitment expected of hosts. So, please avoid too much work for the hosts by being moderate in the number of links you post]
[ 23. September 2013, 12:32: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
And how does this uplifting experience apply to an organization entirely staffed and run by volunteers as opposed to personnel earning salaries and benefits?
Just relating my own experience. Are you suggesting that being a volunteer removes any requirement to have skills? That would be an unusual approach.
▼
Posted by David (# 3) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
We've had yet another thread spoiled by hostly copyright ignorance. Really, we need the Admins to bash some heads together on this one, but I will give as brief as possible a summary of what hosts need to know to avoid looking like jerks on this subject and bringing their positions into disrepute.
A quick look at any WHOIS site will give the location of this zzzzzz website as being in London. This means that zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz English law applies.
Copyright in England and Wales is regulated under the zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
shit I fell asleep on the keyboard and accidentally deleted some really interesting prose
The way I understand it, the Ship's copyright rules are expressed in such a way that people don't have to read drivel that isn't yours. Otherwise, nobody would know who to insult.
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, you can post links to things posted elsewhere.
[ETA: Hosts will check that links actually go somewhere, and do not go to sites advocating illegal activity or directly to sites of a particularly objectionable nature, eg: explicit sexual content. Also, links to YouTube and similar can sometimes take a long time to load and run, adding to the time commitment expected of hosts. So, please avoid too much work for the hosts by being moderate in the number of links you post]
It had never occurred to me that as well as reading our posts, the hosts would have to read/listen to/view the links too. Dear God! Where do I donate chocolate?
(It says something of my internet naivety that it had also never occurred to me that a link to Tristan und Isolde might segue halfway through to Tristan Does Isolde.)
Posted by seasick (# 48) on
:
Just send GIN! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...(It says something of my internet naivety that it had also never occurred to me that a link to Tristan und Isolde might segue halfway through to Tristan Does Isolde.)
That would have to be more interesting than them constantly shouting "Tristan" - "Isolde" at one another across the stage!
p.s. I am not a Wagnerian, apart from Maestersinger.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
I should have thought that whether one is a volunteer or salaried makes no great difference to one's efficiency.
No, but it makes a great difference how much it is reasonable to ask them to do.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
If the dress code at the party in Simon's house says "No Kilts" I for one would hope to have the manners to not wear a kilt.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
If the dress code at the party in Simon's house says "No Kilts" I for one would hope to have the manners to not wear a kilt.
Fly Safe, Pyx_e
I for one would hope you have the manners to wear trousers.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
We're partying at Simon's? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Hmmm...now, what potluck dish shall I bring?
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Humble pie.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
Is the Ship's copyright policy set out somewhere?
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is the Ship's copyright policy set out somewhere?
Not in the detail that you might like.
The main kernel is Commandment 7, which is intentionally vague. From a practical point of view, we have developed a practice of preferring links to works on other sites and trying to keep quotes to just a few key sentences. And we do not expect any Host to know the details of any copyright circumstance, so to always default to assuming the most conservative stance.
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on
:
quote:
A quick look at any WHOIS site will give the location of this website as being in London. This means that English law applies.
[/QB]
WHOIS shows that my business website is registered in Arizona. The business is located in another country, Canada, but WHOIS doesn't tell you that. Only a lunatic would tangle with the law in Arizona. I've stayed out of trouble so far, but I hope you are wrong about that.
As far as the Ship's policy is concerned, it does seem cautious and conservative to me. However, it works, and it doesn't usually take much effort to fill in missing information when the need arises.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
[QUOTE]
A quick look at any WHOIS site will give the location of this website as being in London. This means that English law applies.
I think it is more complicated than that. The domain and ip info indicates registration in one location and server info for a host of countries with a primary location. The wisest thing to do is avoid any controversy always that involves any expenses, explanations and lawyers etc.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Is the Ship's copyright policy set out somewhere?
Not in the detail that you might like.
The main kernel is Commandment 7, which is intentionally vague. From a practical point of view, we have developed a practice of preferring links to works on other sites and trying to keep quotes to just a few key sentences. And we do not expect any Host to know the details of any copyright circumstance, so to always default to assuming the most conservative stance.
The problem is that the policy as stated is actually misleading, because it implicitly invites people to post whatever they like as long as they don't believe it to be a copyright violation (which, given the global nature of the Ship and the increasing insanity of IP law is an invitation to chaos). It would be more helpful (and accurate) to say something like "don't quote more than three sentences of anything." Or something like that.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
So ... has Leo been suspended/banned for quoting from his own blog, or because you (PTB) can't be certain that the blog he says he quoted from is his own?
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
Or because he violated the terms of the last warning he was given by the Admins.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
Yes, I understand there was a previous warning about possible copyright violations, but I don't recall the detail. I'm asking about the principle of copying from one's own blog. So, I can link to a blog in my sig, and say it's my blog, but I can't quote from it, because there would still be doubt that it really is mine? And would this not then apply to shipmates who post under their real names?
[ 15. October 2013, 06:44: Message edited by: QLib ]
Posted by rufiki (# 11165) on
:
I think that, even if the blog is yours, you don't necessarily own the content once it's published. It depends on the T&Cs you agreed with the company that hosts it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
My recollection - and I emphasise that this is purely mental recollection at this point and that I haven't yet hunted down the precise terms of leo's warning - was that the warning related to leo claiming material as his own thoughts that turned out not to be his own thoughts at all.
I don't think that would lead us to presume, in other cases, that the material on a Shipmate's blog was not their own. I'm fairly sure on occasion that people have linked to their own blogs without any kind of fuss occurring, because there hasn't been this extra element of it either being proved or admitted in a previous case that the material came from elsewhere.
[ 15. October 2013, 07:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
NB I also don't know what might have been admitted or proved in this new case. In Hell leo says it comes from a paper he did in 1999. Zach appears sceptical of this. Personally I haven't investigated any further and I don't know what evidence is available. It is certain, at least, that leo's blog is not the original source of the material.
Basically I'm just pointing out that the context is not simply 'I've linked to my blog'. There's rather more to it than that.
[ 15. October 2013, 07:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Leo included text in his post from another site, without even identifying it as a quote. He subsequently claimed it was a quote from his own blog. I edited the post in Purgatory (and subsequent quotes of that) replacing it with a link to the same text elsewhere, the site I linked to gave no identification of the author on that page and it's too much work to hunt through a site to find author identification and check against a Shipmate. Even if something can be clearly identified as being written by the Shipmate who is posting it here that doesn't mean we're free of copyright issues - it is possible for the site it was originally posted on to retain some rights over reproduction of material they have published.
It was the specific habit leo had for copying material into his posts, as though he had written that specifically to respond to other posts in the thread, which was the problem. Not doing that was one of the conditions of his return following a previous suspension. It is a habit that is lazy and results in posts that rarely fit naturally into the flow of a thread. It is disrespectful to others on the thread, a "I can't be bothered to respond to what you said properly, but will quickly post something vaguely relevant".
If you have written something somewhere else (or, even on another thread on the Ship) that is relevant then by all means quote it. But, clearly identify it as a quote (that way people know that some things in that bit of text may not have been written to directly address the point that you are responding to), preferably quoting only the material that's directly relevant and with a link to the original. I don't even think it's necessary to identify yourself as the author. If you treat quoting yourself in the same way you'd quote someone else then there should be no problem at all.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is certain, at least, that leo's blog is not the original source of the material.
Why is that certain?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Leo included text in his post from another site, without even identifying it as a quote. He subsequently claimed it was a quote from his own blog. I edited the post in Purgatory (and subsequent quotes of that) replacing it with a link to the same text elsewhere, the site I linked to gave no identification of the author on that page and it's too much work to hunt through a site to find author identification and check against a Shipmate. Even if something can be clearly identified as being written by the Shipmate who is posting it here that doesn't mean we're free of copyright issues - it is possible for the site it was originally posted on to retain some rights over reproduction of material they have published.
If its his own work, surely he can copy and paste as he likes? Copyright issues deal with when you do that and do not acknowledge it is someone else's work.
The "about" on his blog identifies him as leo (in as much as we know his history on the ship - retired teacher etc)
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If you have written something somewhere else (or, even on another thread on the Ship) that is relevant then by all means quote it. But, clearly identify it as a quote (that way people know that some things in that bit of text may not have been written to directly address the point that you are responding to), preferably quoting only the material that's directly relevant and with a link to the original.
But this still doesn't mean he's contravening copyright laws if he's quoting his own work does it?
RooK says in Hell:
quote:
If we can find anything you post here written somewhere else on the web, we're going to ban the everliving fuck out of you.
If that's why he's been suspended or banned then fair enough - you wanted to clean up his posting and linking niceties.
But I can't see how he has contravened copyright issues if it is his own work.
Two separate issues perhaps: posting nicety vs copyright issues? If it is posting nicety, does that really deserve a ban??
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is certain, at least, that leo's blog is not the original source of the material.
Why is that certain?
Because he said so himself.
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Two separate issues perhaps: posting nicety vs copyright issues? If it is posting nicety, does that really deserve a ban??
In addition to the copyright issues, I thought the other part would be more accurately described as a deliberate breach of a specific condition on his continued presence here rather than "posting nicety" as you dismiss it.
It was suicide by cop, not an unjust ban.
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on
:
Evensong, just because somebody writes something does not immediately mean that the copyright rests with them. When I was working for my living as a rule the copyright in all I produced rested not with me but with my employer, this is quite usual practice, and not just in UK. When I wrote something that was adapted from a letter I wrote to my father I had to ask specifically for the copyright to be my own.
Similarly if I publish something the copyright is not automatically mine, think of all the authors and composers who have sold the copyright to their works, not always to their advantage. As I understand it, if I publish something on the internet it depends on the regulations of the particular site as to where the copyright might rest.
If I call myself Welease Woderwick here and Tarquin Carruthers there and Tony Abbott elsewhere can I freely quote Tarquin Carruthers or Tony Abbott if I don't tell everyone that that is my persona in another place?
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
I'm aware of the background with leo, so I'm not commenting specifically on this latest chapter.
However, am I alone in thinking that this whole copyright thing has become a local obsession, fuelled by constant regurgitation of the subject? Does anyone have any knowledge of a forum such as this ever having been successfully sued for copyright infringement?
▲
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
However, am I alone in thinking that this whole copyright thing has become a local obsession, fuelled by constant regurgitation of the subject?
The rules around this haven't changed since I first came on board ten years ago. The only reason it's coming up a lot lately is because posters are posting reams of stuff that's not theirs a lot lately.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Does anyone have any knowledge of a forum such as this ever having been successfully sued for copyright infringement?
No.
Are you prepared to fund the defense of an unsuccessful suit?
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
I'm aware of the background with leo, so I'm not commenting specifically on this latest chapter.
However, am I alone in thinking that this whole copyright thing has become a local obsession, fuelled by constant regurgitation of the subject? Does anyone have any knowledge of a forum such as this ever having been successfully sued for copyright infringement?
▲
AFAIK most cases of this nature don't come to court. A writ is served, legal eagles are hired and a hearing date may be fixed then a grovelling apology often accompanied by costs and an out-of-court settlement is a common outcome. All rather a let-down, but an expensive one.
I don't want to contribute to The Ship and its owner/s having to do either of things.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Does anyone have any knowledge of a forum such as this ever having been successfully sued for copyright infringement?
No.
Are you prepared to fund the defense of an unsuccessful suit?
Why would one defend such a suit? As far as I can see from my intensive research (i.e. googling) what usually happens is that someone contacts the forum/message board/publication/whatever, and says "Hey - that's mine!" and the forum/message board/publication/whatever says "Oh - sorry" and takes it down. And that's it. You don't defend it, you acquiesce. The scope of the board is too limited to claim long-term reputational damage on the part of the plaintiff, and there are no assets to plunder for recompense.
▲
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yeah, but you just don't take the risk. I have some experience of this, having been an author for 20 years, and publishers are pretty nervous about it, and apparently, copyright lawyers absolute f****s. I remember once quoting a pop song, and I was involved in writing letters to agents etc., for about 6 months, so in the end, I took it out.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Does anyone have any knowledge of a forum such as this ever having been successfully sued for copyright infringement?
No.
Are you prepared to fund the defense of an unsuccessful suit?
Why would one defend such a suit? As far as I can see from my intensive research (i.e. googling) what usually happens is that someone contacts the forum/message board/publication/whatever, and says "Hey - that's mine!" and the forum/message board/publication/whatever says "Oh - sorry" and takes it down. And that's it. You don't defend it, you acquiesce. The scope of the board is too limited to claim long-term reputational damage on the part of the plaintiff, and there are no assets to plunder for recompense.
▲
Hmm. While I agree that most reasonable people would be likely to be satisfied by this kind of removal, I would rather we not be placed in the position of relying on people's reasonableness.
And part of the reason for saying that is because it's so damned avoidable. Honestly, if people can find the copy and paste commands to take a great big chunk of text from a website, why can't they find the copy and paste commands for a URL? That's really all we're asking for here. Use the basic principle of the connectivity of the internet. We've even given folks a really, really simple tool for creating text for your URL rather than having a big messy http:// splodge appearing on screen.
It's a simple thing to do and I'm quite sure that every single Shipmate is capable of learning how to do it.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The long standing policy here in regard to copyright, and other issues with potential legal ramifications, has been to ensure that the Ship sails in waters that are well clear of legal difficulties while minimising the work load required of volunteer hosts.
Reducing workload for hosts means that they are not expected to verify the copyright status of large chunks of quoted material (much less be expected to identify quoted material that isn't identified as such by common methods like quotation marks or the use of the QUOTE UBB code).
We do not expect hosts to need to search through a website to identify the author of quoted material.
We do not expect hosts to do a Google search to determine whether text on a Shipmates blog has itself been copied from another site.
We do not expect hosts to find the T&Cs underwhich something was posted elsewhere to see what copyright conditions apply.
We do not expect hosts to determine if the text of an old hymn quoted is the original, or whether there is copyright held by a subsequent publisher.
etc.
Which is why we ask people to clearly identify quotes, to keep quotes short and relevant (so that if under copyright a "fair use" exemption can be applied), to provide a link to the source (if possible, so that the rest of us can put the quote in context if we wish). And, we ask people to apply the same guidelines to quoting their own material. Because none of us want to burden the volunteers who host the boards with extra work, do we?
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The long standing policy here in regard to copyright, and other issues with potential legal ramifications, has been to ensure that the Ship sails in waters that are well clear of legal difficulties while minimising the work load required of volunteer hosts.
It would really help - at least more infrequent posters like me - if the ship's policy were codified somewhere. Before the recent flare ups in this area I was unaware of any firm policy other than the very brief reference in Commandment 7. This especially needs to be codified, in my view, as some shippies might consider some of the stipulations surprising. Restriction from quoting your own work (even if you know you own the copyright vesting in it) surprised me, certainly, and I am an IP professional. I submit a "layman" would be even more surprised by this.
Is copyright violation considered closely for anything other than quoted text? The ship, presumably, either owns the copyright or has the necessary permissions to use the various stock avatar pictures and smilies for use in posts? If someone wishes to submit their own avatar picture, must they declare they own the copyright in it or have the necessary permission to use it? The pictures of Gadgets for God will all have copyright vested in them, but they're not attributed. The photos and pictures for Caption Competition likewise.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is certain, at least, that leo's blog is not the original source of the material.
Why is that certain?
Because he said so himself.
But he said it was from a paper of his from 1999. There is a problem with putting old writing on your blog? And how does this infringe copyright?
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Evensong, just because somebody writes something does not immediately mean that the copyright rests with them. When I was working for my living as a rule the copyright in all I produced rested not with me but with my employer, this is quite usual practice, and not just in UK. When I wrote something that was adapted from a letter I wrote to my father I had to ask specifically for the copyright to be my own.
I am a Wordpress user ( leo's blog company ). I recall no agreement to copyrights of my blogged material to them and them alone.
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Two separate issues perhaps: posting nicety vs copyright issues? If it is posting nicety, does that really deserve a ban??
In addition to the copyright issues
I can't see a copyright issue. Yet that is the reason given in Alan Creswell's edited comment in
purgatory where all the fuss started.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The long standing policy here in regard to copyright, and other issues with potential legal ramifications, has been to ensure that the Ship sails in waters that are well clear of legal difficulties while minimising the work load required of volunteer hosts.
Reducing workload for hosts means that they are not expected to verify the copyright status of large chunks of quoted material (much less be expected to identify quoted material that isn't identified as such by common methods like quotation marks or the use of the QUOTE UBB code).
Your edited post in purgatory does not make clear what exactly leo did in his original post.
Did he quote and not acknowledge or did he just post something that you thought looked like he might be quoting or that he should be quoting because it seemed to refer to a slightly different context?
What was it that made you think it was a copyright breach?
If you did think it was a copyright breach, have you now thought otherwise since it is indeed leo's blog (which he links to in his sig)?
I have personally copied and pasted stuff from my blog that I have written before and thought relevant to discussions here. I did not realise that was a problem for the Ship.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Restriction from quoting your own work (even if you know you own the copyright vesting in it) surprised me, certainly, and I am an IP professional. I submit a "layman" would be even more surprised by this.
Jinx!
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I am a Wordpress user ( leo's blog company ). I recall no agreement to copyrights of my blogged material to them and them alone.
We do not expect Hosts to be familiar with the copyright policies of every single blog company in the world, nor do we expect them to conduct lengthy research into said policies any time there is a potential violation. The operating assumption is that anything published elsewhere on the internet is under copyright.
Posted by Ann (# 94) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Restriction from quoting your own work (even if you know you own the copyright vesting in it) surprised me, certainly, and I am an IP professional. I submit a "layman" would be even more surprised by this.
Jinx!
But that's not the point. I could present a large text-dense argument and have someone find the exact same words on the internet and call me on it only for me to say "Oh yes, a little bit of scholarship I published on the web" - but that wouldn't necessarily be *true and the hosts have no way of proving that I am the **author of said words.
*Unlikely - I'm too lazy to argue much - I prefer listening top others most of the time.
**Which I'm not.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The operating assumption is that anything published elsewhere on the internet is under copyright.
Serious question: who owns the copyright to posts on the Ship of Fools?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It is certain, at least, that leo's blog is not the original source of the material.
Why is that certain?
Because he said so himself.
But he said it was from a paper of his from 1999. There is a problem with putting old writing on your blog? And how does this infringe copyright?
I didn't say that it did.
And please also note that the edit of leo's post said possible copyright issue. You're asking for the production of a proof that wasn't claimed to exist in this instance.
We are not copyright lawyers. We are not forensic detectives.
We are also not mind readers - able to verify that leo is telling the truth when he provides a justification after the fact (a justification I already noted was treated sceptically by another Shipmate - again, this doesn't prove that the justification was incorrect either).
We are also dealing with a particular case where a Shipmate was on a warning because on at least one other occasion it WAS proved that he was posting something as his own thoughts when it was not his.
Can I also just say, just because this issue with leo has been posted on an existing thread about copyright issues, stop presuming that the issue is merely about copyright.
[ 15. October 2013, 14:52: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The operating assumption is that anything published elsewhere on the internet is under copyright.
Serious question: who owns the copyright to posts on the Ship of Fools?
See the FAQs page
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
Ah. I'll be keeping my thesis to myself then...
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
FWIW, the Ship warns about this at times. At the start of the writers' thread in Heaven, a Host put up a warning not to include excerpts of your writings on this thread. I'm guessing that one of the reasons is that if you did, this excerpt would belong to the Ship. I put a similar warning when I started a thread about composing music.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by iamchristianhearmeroar:
Ah. I'll be keeping my thesis to myself then...
If you have the expertise and talent I'm sure there's plenty of room for PhD's in copyright law regarding "New Media".
But not here. We've got a simple policy which doesn't constrain debate and discourse unduly.
Posted by Spawn (# 4867) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
FWIW, the Ship warns about this at times. At the start of the writers' thread in Heaven, a Host put up a warning not to include excerpts of your writings on this thread. I'm guessing that one of the reasons is that if you did, this excerpt would belong to the Ship. I put a similar warning when I started a thread about composing music.
No, any of your writings published here belong to both you and the Ship. The Ship can publish them without your permission but you can also publish your own words (though it would be a courtesy to saythat they were first published on the Ship).
Leo's an incredibly irritating Shipmate. He should have been banned years ago for plagiarism and numerous blatant copyright violations. The admins didn't when it was warranted but there's absolutely no justification for doing so now. I usually agree with the admins but this was a pretty poor call.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Spawn: No, any of your writings published here belong to both you and the Ship. The Ship can publish them without your permission but you can also publish your own words (though it would be a courtesy to saythat they were first published on the Ship).
Yes, I agree that this is better representation of the Ship's policy. In any case I would definitely refrain from posting my poetry (not that I have it) or my music on the Ship, just to avoid complications.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Forgive me, but...
...some of you seem to be writing as if leo has been permanently banned. Has such a decision been made? I haven't yet seen it if it has. Just checking if I'm missed something.
Posted by David (# 3) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
Leo's an incredibly irritating Shipmate. He should have been banned years ago for plagiarism and numerous blatant copyright violations. The admins didn't when it was warranted but there's absolutely no justification for doing so now. I usually agree with the admins but this was a pretty poor call.
The final straw almost always looks trivial, but it's rarely that simple. In most cases the real issue with repeat offenders is that what you've seen is their last flagrant arse flashing at the Admins.
This sort of thing has been going on forever - the Admins ban some recalcitrant toerag for what seems a minor matter, then they bear the flack for years. FFS, people are still complaining about Gordon bloody Cheng!
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
Well, orfeo, he wasn't given a 1-week or even a 1-month shore leave. He was given an indefinite suspension, followed by a clear statement that the adminisphere would be examining whether to make it permanent.
If the admins then came back and announced to the rest of us that they had decided to make it permanent, it would be unusual, to say the least. Hosts will undoubtedly be told, but the rest of us won't learn about it unless one of leo's friends from real life who is also on the Ship decides to raise a stink. I can think of one who might; there may be more.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Does anyone have any knowledge of a forum such as this ever having been successfully sued for copyright infringement?
No.
Are you prepared to fund the defense of an unsuccessful suit?
Why would one defend such a suit? As far as I can see from my intensive research (i.e. googling) what usually happens is that someone contacts the forum/message board/publication/whatever, and says "Hey - that's mine!" and the forum/message board/publication/whatever says "Oh - sorry" and takes it down. And that's it. You don't defend it, you acquiesce. The scope of the board is too limited to claim long-term reputational damage on the part of the plaintiff, and there are no assets to plunder for recompense.
In my experience it doesn't work like that. We all got warned to be careful locally when a nearby church published a poem on their website without permission. The church was approached by the copyright holder who requested several thousand pounds in compensation. (I can't remember if it was £3,000 or £5,000) Probably an amount judged on what would get paid rather than going to court to challenge it, so based on the likely legal costs.
And then there are a number of churches that have had to pay costs for using hymns out of copyright, particularly Morning has broken
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
CK is correct. Even a consultation with a lawyer costs. And it costs a lot, here I doubt I'd get an opinion on such a matter without $2K up front. Very conservative approaches to copyright are appropriate and so is very diligent enforcement of the rules, and if it seems somewhat inconsistent and arbitrary at times, so be it. The ship is volunteer and I suspect training is on the job for the most part. If someone ever did complain, well in my experience, they are always looking for money. Lawsuits of all kinds are called 'nuisance' if under some amount that represents less than the trouble of fighting it out, typically ~$5K here.
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
Publishing a poem on a website isn't the same as quoting a section (however large) of a poem in a forum discussion. Websites tend to exist in order to represent, promote or popularize someone or something such as a product or an organization, so the content thereon is intended to benefit the website owner. Having a website whose only purpose is to reproduce poetry would certainly seem to be subject to copyright restrictions, and publishing a poem as "Thought for Today" or such like would seem to be similarly constrained.
Regarding "Morning Has Broken", I'm confused. I've just looked, and it is subject to copyright, to David Higham Associates, so I'm guessing a small typo there CK. That said, the copyright is on reproduction of the text, not performance of the song, so I suppose that if you use a hymnal the publisher of which has paid its dues there is no problem. If you photocopy and distribute from that hymnal then I guess that's breach of copyright.
It appears that the approach being taken of late (I take Marvin's point that the rules haven't changed in ten years, but would suggest that the implementation and interpretation thereof have certainly changed in the last year or so, as I can't recall the issue being so widely discussed in the five years prior to that) is that there is an inclination to edit out anything which might even be a candidate for consideration for copyright claim. There's a certain irony that the preferred option is to use a link, as the link a) has to be checked by a mod and b) might be to a destination which is in itself in breach of copyright, so presumably by allowing it to remain the mod would be compounding the breach.
▲
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer
There's a certain irony that the preferred option is to use a link, as the link a) has to be checked by a mod and b) might be to a destination which is in itself in breach of copyright, so presumably by allowing it to remain the mod would be compounding the breach.
AIUI linking to a site that is in breach of copyright is not a breach of copyright.
Moo
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by passer
There's a certain irony that the preferred option is to use a link, as the link a) has to be checked by a mod and b) might be to a destination which is in itself in breach of copyright, so presumably by allowing it to remain the mod would be compounding the breach.
AIUI linking to a site that is in breach of copyright is not a breach of copyright.
Moo
A site that is subject to the Digital Millenium Communications Act (USA) can be issued with a takedown notice requiring them to take down links to other pages that breach copyright. The Ship could be subject to the DMCA, I'm not sure on the specifics of what sites it does/doesn't cover and whether the Ship would tick any of those boxes.
I wonder if the people who enforce the DMCA are on furlough though? Maybe now would be the perfect time for plagiarism
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
It appears that the approach being taken of late (I take Marvin's point that the rules haven't changed in ten years, but would suggest that the implementation and interpretation thereof have certainly changed in the last year or so, as I can't recall the issue being so widely discussed in the five years prior to that) is that there is an inclination to edit out anything which might even be a candidate for consideration for copyright claim.
Which has always been the case. It has been several years since I was a mere Purgatory host, but editing down extensive quotes was routine then. The more recent frequent discussion seems, to me, to be more a reflection of some people deciding to question the policy.
quote:
There's a certain irony that the preferred option is to use a link, as the link a) has to be checked by a mod and b) might be to a destination which is in itself in breach of copyright, so presumably by allowing it to remain the mod would be compounding the breach.
a) checking links is mainly to determine if they go where they probably should (miscoding the URL code is very common), and to confirm the site itself isn't potentially advocating illegal activity and work safe. That's something that takes very little time, and is certainly far less work than determining the copyright status of a given quoted text.
b) to the best of our knowledge posting a URL does not count as making a copy of the text (music, video etc) linked to. Therefore, it is not a breach of copyright.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
[Crossposted with Alan, who said the same thing only better. I hate it when that happens.]
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
It appears that the approach being taken of late (I take Marvin's point that the rules haven't changed in ten years, but would suggest that the implementation and interpretation thereof have certainly changed in the last year or so, as I can't recall the issue being so widely discussed in the five years prior to that) is that there is an inclination to edit out anything which might even be a candidate for consideration for copyright claim.
That's always been the policy as well. I remember it being a specific part of Host Training back when I first became a Hellhost in 2005.
The rule's implementation hasn't changed. The rule's interpretation hasn't changed. All that's changed is the amount of posters who want to quote large amounts of stuff from another site rather than making their point in their own words, then complain in Styx when they get told not to.
I really don't see what's so difficult about not quoting massive amounts of text from anywhere else. Is it really so hard to pick a couple of lines that support the gist of your point and put in a hyperlink to the rest of the article/song/blog/whatever in your post?
quote:
There's a certain irony that the preferred option is to use a link, as the link a) has to be checked by a mod and b) might be to a destination which is in itself in breach of copyright, so presumably by allowing it to remain the mod would be compounding the breach.
We would not be culpable for the copyright violation in such a case, as we would not be publishing the offending material.
[ 16. October 2013, 12:34: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I guess there may be two interlocked issues here. Plagiarism (representing other people's stuff as your own) is a form of dishonesty and if it is seen to be a pattern, it marks you out as some kind of a jerk. So, as David said, you can get a "last straw" incident where the ostensible offence (copyright) confirms the impression of incorrible jerkiness over that issue as least. (I remember an analogous "last straw" over Myrrh on a climate change thread; not so much the specific offence as the cumulative effect).
Then you've got the other issue i.e legal risk where, speaking as a Host, I'm glad the bar is set low for us i.e. link rather than quote extensively (with or without attribution). It's very safety first, I know, but it is easier to Host that way and it looks after the meagre coffers of this long-running forum.
All of that seems quite reasonable to me, both as policy and application.
[ 16. October 2013, 15:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by David:
FFS, people are still complaining about Gordon bloody Cheng!
I think it might be time to update this reference. Most of the people who complained about his planking aren't really posting anymore. Oddly enough, thanks to a number of mutual Shipmate friends facebook keeps suggesting him to me as someone I might know...
I was following the thread where he was planked--it would be hard to invent a more perfect textbook case of "suicide by cop". I don't think leo or anyone else repeating stuff they had written on their blog would be acting with quite that same intent. I'm not really going to defend leo very heartily though--unlike most of the other people on the ship, his history of plagiarism was flagrant and repeated.
I can think of one other now-well-respected Shipmate who I believe was caught out on plagiarism and never repeated what he admitted was a stupid act. No one else has leo's history, and I seriously doubt anyone who could show a good-faith effort to abide by copyright rules on the ship would receive more than a comment from a host if they transgressed. That comment would be more or less gentle, no doubt, depending on the Host and the Board.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Yes ~ my bad ~ I meant in copyright for Morning has Broken ~and a number of churches have fallen foul of that one in wedding service booklets.
My point was that there is usually some monetary settlement required, alongside taking down the offending material.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
It appears that the approach being taken of late (I take Marvin's point that the rules haven't changed in ten years, but would suggest that the implementation and interpretation thereof have certainly changed in the last year or so, as I can't recall the issue being so widely discussed in the five years prior to that) is that there is an inclination to edit out anything which might even be a candidate for consideration for copyright claim.
That's always been the policy as well. I remember it being a specific part of Host Training back when I first became a Hellhost in 2005.
The rule's implementation hasn't changed. The rule's interpretation hasn't changed. All that's changed is the amount of posters who want to quote large amounts of stuff from another site rather than making their point in their own words, then complain in Styx when they get told not to.
another side of this -
The Ship goes through phases where certain regulations are in the limelight more than others. In the past, we've had epic Styx discussions over sockpuppetry, over not being a jerk in general, over respecting the crew, etc. AND, we've had long discussions over copyright.
Over time, active shipmates change. new people join, old farts fade out. the 10 commandments and board guidelines stay pretty much the same, but every new "generation" needs discussions like this to understand the subtleties of the rules and the "why" behind the rules. This is hardly the first time I've seen this discussion, nor is it the first time we've had people get lax on the rules and have gone through a phase of having to enforce it more often than at other times. That's not because we've (as hosts) decided to do some sort of crackdown, but because people are crossing the line more often.
it was ever so and we'll have this discussion again in a few years. It's the nature of a community like this, that is always changing in population while the structure remains the same. Sort of like a high school. Seniors have gotten the hang of things; freshman are just figuring it out, and the staff needs to eternally remind people of how it works.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
....
... we ask people to clearly identify quotes, to keep quotes short and relevant (so that if under copyright a "fair use" exemption can be applied), to provide a link to the source (if possible, so that the rest of us can put the quote in context if we wish). And, we ask people to apply the same guidelines to quoting their own material. Because none of us want to burden the volunteers who host the boards with extra work, do we?
This is a helpful description which might be usefully appended to the commandment. If the goal is to keep the Commandments very brief, perhaps a Talmudic gloss on the commandments would be appropriate.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0