• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

[Input Requested] Terms and conditions for the International Skeptics Forum

Lolly said:
AND the minute the new owners publish it they breach copyright. "They won't be published anywhere else than forum itself" is nonsense.

PUBLICATION ON A FORUM BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE JREF IS A BREACH OF COPYRIGHT. PUBLICATION ON THE FORUM ITSELF IS A BREACH OF COPYRIGHT.

You can't mark people as "guests" or "unregistered" to something they never joined, and have never visited and which is breaching their copyright by re-publishing content without any right to do so. You can't mark them as anything at all.

WHO EXACTLY ARE THE NEW OWNERS? Not some corporation name, who is actually doing this?
Click to expand...
*sigh*

Your questions have been answered numerous times; people who are lawyers with significant understanding of this entire thing have chimed in; yet you keep making the same claims.

Essentially, you don't understand it...so it must be wrong. I'm sorry, but your lack of comprehension doesn't constitute a crisis on the part of the forum. No copyright is being breached. If you disagree, rather than spouting the same ignorant nonsense over and over, consult an actual copyright lawyer. They'll just repeat what everyone here has already told you.
 
Lolly said:
WHO EXACTLY ARE THE NEW OWNERS? Not some corporation name, who is actually doing this?
Click to expand...
You own the copyright, hopefully you know your own name. You granted license to the JREF. It's a corporation, so by insisting the answer can't be a corporation name you are guaranteeing the question can't be answered to your satisfaction.
 
Lolly said:
AND the minute the new owners publish it they breach copyright. "They won't be published anywhere else than forum itself" is nonsense.

PUBLICATION ON A FORUM BY ANYONE OTHER THAN THE JREF IS A BREACH OF COPYRIGHT. PUBLICATION ON THE FORUM ITSELF IS A BREACH OF COPYRIGHT.

You can't mark people as "guests" or "unregistered" to something they never joined, and have never visited and which is breaching their copyright by re-publishing content without any right to do so. You can't mark them as anything at all.

WHO EXACTLY ARE THE NEW OWNERS? Not some corporation name, who is actually doing this?
Click to expand...

We are going round in circles so all I can say is a sincere thanks for your input and leave it at that.
 
out of the loop

I'm sure I've missed this somewhere, but who exactly now owns the forum?
 
Wolfman said:
*sigh*

Your questions have been answered numerous times;
Click to expand...

This is almost getting funny. Kinda like "Who's on first".
Lolly has made a very good point that JREF and the new whomevers are two completely different entities.
The JREF is a not for profit organization with very clearly stated goals and motivations.
The other is anybody's best guess.

How do I or anyone else know that any profits made from a completely new forum my post are now part of if I agree to the T&C or not doesn't go into the creation or upkeep of a nazi propaganda forum that I would never want any part in?

I agreed to the T&C of the JREF because I agreed with their overall mission and because I trusted James Randi.

What does that have to do with something or someone called tech tribe?

I find it rather odd that statements of how unimportant Lollys questions are are backed up with a multitude of post explaining in detail how unimportant they are.

Reminds me of cockroaches scattering when the lights come on.

There will be lawsuits.
 
Brattus said:
This is almost getting funny. Kinda like "Who's on first".
Lolly has made a very good point that JREF and the new whomevers are two completely different entities.
The JREF is a not for profit organization with very clearly stated goals and motivations.
The other is anybody's best guess.

How do I or anyone else know that any profits made from a completely new forum my post are now part of if I agree to the T&C or not doesn't go into the creation or upkeep of a nazi propaganda forum that I would never want any part in?

I agreed to the T&C of the JREF because I agreed with their overall mission and because I trusted James Randi.

What does that have to do with something or someone called tech tribe?

I find it rather odd that statements of how unimportant Lollys questions are are backed up with a multitude of post explaining in detail how unimportant they are.

Reminds me of cockroaches scattering when the lights come on.

There will be lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Really? That will be a collossal waste of money.

Your motivation for agreeing to the T&C of the JREF is really irrelevant. The fact is you agreed to it and under the T&C JREF can re-publish which is what it is going to do.

If you don't like the new organization, don't join when things move over.

And the joke about profits made from the new forum is a good one.
 
Last edited:
The only thing that gives me pause is:

By posting, uploading, or sharing your content on the Forum, you grant TribeTech a perpetual, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, royalty-free, transferable, worldwide license to access, use, and display your content, which includes without limitation the right for TribeTech or any third party it designates, to publish, copy, excerpt, transmit, use, host, index, cache, distribute, display, create derivative works of, modify and adapt, in any form or media now known or subsequently developed.
Click to expand...

There are people discussing novel and play ideas, posting original art works and music -- do they have to worry about this wording? Especially the bolded part?

Personally, I'm more than happy to give icerat the benefit of the doubt. I'm a little leery about "any third party it designates," or transfers the rights to. Is this boilerplate stuff? I'm not much for legalease.

Assuage me, baby!
 
What reason would they have for worrying about that that wouldn't also be a worry just for posting in public?
 
Ryan O'Dine said:
The only thing that gives me pause is:



There are people discussing novel and play ideas, posting original art works and music -- do they have to worry about this wording? Especially the bolded part?

Personally, I'm more than happy to give icerat the benefit of the doubt. I'm a little leery about "any third party it designates," or transfers the rights to. Is this boilerplate stuff? I'm not much for legalease.

Assuage me, baby!
Click to expand...

That's just making explicit what was implicit in the JREF registration agreement. The "....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...." With the added right for TT to transfer their licence.

(The reason for having the new right to transfer the licence is that some of the discussion is that the forum will migrate to being a community owned property probably as part of a new not-for-profit.)
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
What reason would they have for worrying about that that wouldn't also be a worry just for posting in public?
Click to expand...
Because by posting in public, you're not granting a specific right for anyone to modify, adapt or create a derivative of your work. I wouldn't think so, anyway.

Darat said:
That's just making explicit what was implicit in the JREF registration agreement. The "....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...." With the added right for TT to transfer their licence.

(The reason for having the new right to transfer the licence is that some of the discussion is that the forum will migrate to being a community owned property probably as part of a new not-for-profit.)
Click to expand...

Okay, I understand the migration thing, thanks. It still sounds, however, like a right is being given beyond the reproduction of posts. "...create derivative works of, modify and adapt..." is the part I'm stumbling over. Is that phrase strictly necessary?
 
Darat said:
That's just making explicit what was implicit in the JREF registration agreement. The "....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...." With the added right for TT to transfer their licence.

(The reason for having the new right to transfer the licence is that some of the discussion is that the forum will migrate to being a community owned property probably as part of a new not-for-profit.)
Click to expand...

Highlighted part..... I don't have any little dancing smileys, but I'd actually use them if I did. We drifted away from this topic in the early stages of discussion and I'm sure glad to see it's still on the table.
 
Ryan O'Dine said:
Because by posting in public, you're not granting a specific right for anyone to modify, adapt or create a derivative of your work. I wouldn't think so, anyway.
Click to expand...

Modifying and adapting would include simple quoting. And a proper derivative work doesn't necessarrily require permisions from the original author.
 
So, please consider carefully what you choose to share and with whom; we take no responsibility for that activity.
Click to expand...
This, under copyright, is not a term or condition. It's not the only example of something that properly belongs in a separate document called 'guidance for users of the forum'. Here is another one:

For your own safety, you should not disclose personal information such as your email address, home address or telephone number (or other information that would identify you indirectly) on any message board.
Click to expand...
 
Copyright on content generated prior to TribeTech's hosting of the Forum remains with the member, and such content has been [blah blah...]
​

The wording almost makes it sound like it won't be the case afterwards. In fact, nowhere in the Copyright section says what will happen with the poster's copyright after the transfer. I guess the default applies, but it would be nice to explicitly state that the copyright stays with the poster.
 
I find the cookies section a bit incomplete. There are 7 cookies currently stored in my computer, including the most important one, namely the session hash, which tracks the login status and other similar server-side information and is not mentioned. Rather than enumerating the information the cookies keep, I think it would be better to go more general in the wording, perhaps using expressions such as "including, but not limited to".
 
Brattus said:
This is almost getting funny. Kinda like "Who's on first".
Lolly has made a very good point that JREF and the new whomevers are two completely different entities.
The JREF is a not for profit organization with very clearly stated goals and motivations.
The other is anybody's best guess.

How do I or anyone else know that any profits made from a completely new forum my post are now part of if I agree to the T&C or not doesn't go into the creation or upkeep of a nazi propaganda forum that I would never want any part in?

I agreed to the T&C of the JREF because I agreed with their overall mission and because I trusted James Randi.

What does that have to do with something or someone called tech tribe?

I find it rather odd that statements of how unimportant Lollys questions are are backed up with a multitude of post explaining in detail how unimportant they are.

Reminds me of cockroaches scattering when the lights come on.

There will be lawsuits.
Click to expand...


I wonder how many of the contributors to the original MathWorld site realized the implications of the deal made with CRC Press.
 
Darat said:
Posted By: Darat
Please have a read of the draft of the new terms and conditions members will have to agree to before their accounts are active on the new International Skeptics Forum.

Whilst the format of the terms and conditions have been altered somewhat - for example the privacy policy is no longer a separate document much remains the same.

Many of the changes revolve around making the language clearer to understand but there are significant changes as a result of the change of ownership of the new Forum and the owners rights to reassign the licence members grant to use their content.

If you do have feedback please let me know.



(There is a separate thread detailing the schedule, see: The Forum's future)
Click to expand...
How about an opportunity for banned members to rejoin? New ownership should be a clean slate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom