Future of the Forum

[laca]

To be fair, my comment wasn't really long enough to provide any context!

I meant the previous posts as well.

In terms of the actual mechanics - IP ban? - does that carry over to the new forum too?

I don't think IP bans are actually used, they are usually easy to circumvent. I have't been following the thread carefully enough to know whether this has come up already.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I meant the previous posts as well.

I see. Not to worry - nobody died! ;-)

I don't think IP bans are actually used, they are usually easy to circumvent. I have't been following the thread carefully enough to know whether this has come up already.

Same. And I'm not sure of the mechanics either.

 

[marplots]

If they are banned, how are we allowed to keep their posts on the new site?

I'd give permission to keep my old posts, but the bannanaramas don't have that opportunity.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If they are banned, how are we allowed to keep their posts on the new site?

I'd give permission to keep my old posts, but the bannanaramas don't have that opportunity.

You and they have already given permission.

 

[marplots]

You and they have already given permission.

To whom though? And is that the same whom which will be whom is running the new place?

As a freelance writer, I am somewhat familiar with how copyright works, and unless this forum is a work for hire, copyright is usually not so easily transferable.

I'm not really worried anyone would press the case, but fair's fair.

 

[Olowkow]

... Advocating suicide is no longer an automatic banning offence .....

But still against Rule 1, right? Since it is an illegal act.

....considered likelihood of inciting a violent or felonious act, or an intention or knowledge that its content will be used for, or in furtherance of, any criminal purpose.

 

[Rasmus]

You and they have already given permission.

Where does it say that?

 

[Foolmewunz]

Where does it say that?

This has been covered in several discussions. You agreed to give the JREF rights to publish your posts when you signed off on the MA. A tiny bit of legalese in the transfer of ownership and that permission can be granted to the new owners.

This covers posts, not personal details. The posts are IP and you granted copyright and copyright is transferrable.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Where does it say that?

In the registration agreement. And Foolmewunz got one thing wrong. You didn't transfer your copyright to them, you gave them a license to your work. You still have the copyright on your post and you can use your content anyway you see fit including licensing it to someone else.

 

[Foolmewunz]

In the registration agreement. And Foolmewunz got one thing wrong. You didn't transfer your copyright to them, you gave them a license to your work. You still have the copyright on your post and you can use your content anyway you see fit including licensing it to someone else.

Actually, we said the same thing. You use "license". I used "right". It's the same thing. I didn't say he/she gave away the copyright. We all hold copyright to our writings, but we all granted permission according to the MA, which I believe says "as the JREF sees fit" or something to that effect. That PERMISSION is what the JREF can transfer (e.g. "is transferrable") quite easily. If it wasn't easy then any time a magazine or newspaper or publisher is sold, all the copyrighted material would be in a ridiculous state of limbo.

 

[zooterkin]

But still against Rule 1, right? Since it is an illegal act.

What is an illegal act? Suicide? Not where I live, and not in the US, as far as I can tell.

You are still likely to be moderated for advocating suicide (depending on context, and the usual caveats), and the action could include suspension or even banning; what has changed is that you will not automatically be banned for it.

 

[marplots]

Here's the relevant paragraph from the MA:
"Any post or article published on the JREF forum by a Member is the copyright of the Member and may not be reproduced, copied or otherwise re-published without the express permission of the Member. By posting on the Forum a Member grants the JREF a non-exclusive licence to publish, republish or reproduce their work, in its entirety or as the JREF sees fit, in perpetuity. The James Randi Educational Foundation is the copyright holder of the JREF Forum."

Banned members would have to give permission to a new forum owner to publish their posts. The copyright cannot simply be transferred in the manner suggested unless that is covered elsewhere in the MA.

Wishing it otherwise will not make it so.

 

[zooterkin]

Here's the relevant paragraph from the MA:
"Any post or article published on the JREF forum by a Member is the copyright of the Member and may not be reproduced, copied or otherwise re-published without the express permission of the Member. By posting on the Forum a Member grants the JREF a non-exclusive licence to publish, republish or reproduce their work, in its entirety or as the JREF sees fit, in perpetuity. The James Randi Educational Foundation is the copyright holder of the JREF Forum."

Banned members would have to give permission to a new forum owner to publish their posts. The copyright cannot simply be transferred in the manner suggested unless that is covered elsewhere in the MA.

I am not a lawyer, but, as Foolmewunz has already said, I think you are missing the distinction between transferring the copyright (which is not being done; the member making a post still holds that, which is what the first sentence you quoted from the MA says) and giving the JREF a licence to publish the work (which is what the second sentence quoted is about).

 

[marplots]

I am not a lawyer, but, as Foolmewunz has already said, I think you are missing the distinction between transferring the copyright (which is not being done; the member making a post still holds that, which is what the first sentence you quoted from the MA says) and giving the JREF a licence to publish the work (which is what the second sentence quoted is about).

Unless the MA says differently somewhere, licence transfer (permission to publish) is non-transferable. A company cannot even take content from print and put it online without permission - see recent lawsuit settlement here: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...hears-arguments-in-tasini-copyright-case.html

Arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court March 28 in the copyright infringement case of Tasini v. The New York Times, Laurence Tribe, attorney for the publishers, was glib, quick-witted and creative in arguing that under a disputed section of the 1976 copyright act, publishers did not need explicit permission to use the work of thousands of freelance contributors in electronic databases.

The publishers lost. The default is to get permission and unless transfer permission is specifically given, it cannot happen unilaterally.

Naturally, all this may be moot until some previously banned member files a DCMA...

 

[Olowkow]

What is an illegal act? Suicide? Not where I live, and not in the US, as far as I can tell.

You are still likely to be moderated for advocating suicide (depending on context, and the usual caveats), and the action could include suspension or even banning; what has changed is that you will not automatically be banned for it.

Learn something new every day. I grew up believing "attempted suicide" was a crime. It seems it used to be, and I wasn't paying attention to changes.

By the late 1980s, thirty of the fifty states had no laws against suicide or suicide attempts but every state had laws declaring it to be a felony to aid, advise or encourage another person to commit suicide.[22] By the early 1990s only two states still listed suicide as a crime, and these have since removed that classification.[citation needed] In some U.S. states, suicide is still considered an unwritten "common law crime," as stated in Blackstone's Commentaries.

 

[LashL]

Unless the MA says differently somewhere, licence transfer (permission to publish) is non-transferable. A company cannot even take content from print and put it online without permission - see recent lawsuit settlement here: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/...hears-arguments-in-tasini-copyright-case.html



The publishers lost. The default is to get permission and unless transfer permission is specifically given, it cannot happen unilaterally.

Naturally, all this may be moot until some previously banned member files a DCMA...

The facts of that case are not comparable at all to the current forum situation with the forum and the case has no application to the forum situation. The publisher there was trying to argue "that under a disputed section of the 1976 copyright act, publishers did not need explicit permission to use the work [of freelance writers]" by selling them to others for republishing in electronic format, without compensation to the writers, when the publishers had only a licence to publish the articles in print form and no licence to sell them to others for republishing in electronic form. In the case of the forum, members have already given the JREF permission to "publish, republish or reproduce their work, in its entirety or as the JREF sees fit, in perpetuity".

Apples and oranges sea otters.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Here's the relevant paragraph from the MA:
"Any post or article published on the JREF forum by a Member is the copyright of the Member and may not be reproduced, copied or otherwise re-published without the express permission of the Member. By posting on the Forum a Member grants the JREF a non-exclusive licence to publish, republish or reproduce their work, in its entirety or as the JREF sees fit, in perpetuity. The James Randi Educational Foundation is the copyright holder of the JREF Forum."

Banned members would have to give permission to a new forum owner to publish their posts. The copyright cannot simply be transferred in the manner suggested unless that is covered elsewhere in the MA.

Wishing it otherwise will not make it so.

"Banned members" were merely "members" when they gave their permission for everything they posted to be used in perpetuity by the JREF as the JREF saw fit. The fact that they are no longer members does not remove the right they gave the JREF when they were members.

Ward

 

[Rasmus]

In the case of the forum, members have already given the JREF permission to "publish, republish or reproduce their work, in its entirety or as the JREF sees fit, in perpetuity".

But the JREF isn't going to publish, republish or reproduce the work of the posters. They are transferring to somebody else who will then publish it.

Nobody gave Icerat permission to do anything with the posts.

 

[Darat]

The JREF will re publish most of the current forum content on the new forum. The new forum will have no rights over that content, the JREF is not transferring its licence.

 

[LashL]

But the JREF isn't going to publish, republish or reproduce the work of the posters.

Yes, it is.


ETA: Oops, Darat beat me to it.