response 50 of 88:

Jul 14 17:17 UTC 2000

        An even closer analogy is that users would save every issue of the
        A2 News.. Or spend the time MANUALLY searching backissues at a
        library.

        Specious examples at best.

response 52 of 88:

Jul 14 18:49 UTC 2000

well there isnt a point to a /bbs/censor log unles someone has access to
it...why not encrypt the file and then say that only one person designated
on the staff has thekey, instead of the whole staff.  There are security
reasons why that log has to be kept at all, then just limit staff access
to one person, a cfadmin I s'pse

response 54 of 88:

Jul 14 21:01 UTC 2000

Richard, I don't think you understand the tech issue.  We were voting over
setting permissions on the censored log so that only staff could read it. 
Adding encryption wouldn't be of any benefit.

response 56 of 88:

Jul 14 21:30 UTC 2000

I understand the sentiment of looking for a compromise, but when you carefully
consider this proposal to allow staff to delete responses on request, it
becomes ridiculous:  The people who voted down the proposal to make scribbled
responses publicly inaccessible did so because it offended their notion of
BBS purity.  No one ever said that "well, if staff does it, then it's OK".
It's the same issue:  Whether BBS content, once posted, can be truly hidden
upon the wishes of the poster.  Those people who voted down the other proposal
should vote down this one, if they are to be consistent and not capricious.
Having a staffer hide text instead of the poster doesn't alter the offending
concept of letting the poster decide to "remove" (hide) his posts.  If staff
will hide posts in all cases without evaluation, then it's stupid to get them
involved in the first place:  Just let the poster do it.  It might be
different if there were no way for the poster to do it.  But we already know
there is a way.  And we know the other proposal was voted down, however
narrowly.

response 60 of 88:

Jul 16 16:33 UTC 2000

Nietzsche once said, "At times one remains faithful to a cause 
only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."  Change a
word or two and this would describe rather well why I think the
vote to deperm the censored log failed.  
  As time passes and various options are discussed, I'm finding
the notion of being able to delete postings completely less
distateful.  But I, and I suspect many grexers agree with me on
this, strongly dislike being told I have no choice in the matter.
Arguments like "You *have* to do it, or you're Evil", "You have
to do it or I'll go away and not come back", "You have to do it
because I said so" and the like are, as anyone who knows me will 
attest, one of the best ways to get me not to do something.
There have been an awful lot of those kinds of arguments thrown
around in this discussion, and it's probably turned more people
than just me off to the whole question.  But calm, sane arguments
like #43 and #49 are much more persuasive.  Enough so that I'd
support a proposal to have staff delete text from the censored
log on request.

response 62 of 88:

Jul 16 19:32 UTC 2000

I think you're making an assumption that not everyone here agrees with. 
You're assuming that you own your text in a specific way, and that you are
only putting it out in public on the assumption that you can later remove it
completely.  I don't agree with that, sinceit assumes that nobody is saving
a copy on their own hard drive, etc.

response 64 of 88:

Jul 16 22:44 UTC 2000

> I think you're making an assumption that not everyone here agrees with.

        Everyone ELSE seems to be doing the same. So what?

> You're assuming that you own your text in a specific way..

        Anyone would, as there is NOTHING that *reminds* you otherwise..
        Indeed, there is nothing one can even infer from the fact this is
        NOT Uselessnet or some doze-based equiv. Further, as I recently
        said to Russ: Uselessnet is MILLIONS, and Grex has never mentioned
        it wants to be related - rather, that it's a smaller COMMUNITY.

        I'd further state that Grex has no RIGHT to those posts UNLESS IT
        SPECIFIES such a contention BEFORE a user "signs the contract".
        (Feel free to delete EVERY POST I'VE EVER MADE - including the
        stuff in Jellyware I've deliberately left available.. I won't sign
        such a contract. Ever.)

> ..that you are only putting it out in public on the assumption that you
> can later remove it completely.

        Sure, this isn't UselessNet or "slashdot". What else is presumed?
        (oh, yeah.. that Grex is a 'freenet' and anyone can run net-toys
         and 'bots.. Forgive me.)

>  I don't agree with that, since it assumes that nobody is saving a copy
> on their own hard drive, etc.

        Ummm.. That's just plain stupid..

        1) This is NOT about some dufus doing file->save from IE or
           netscape (except for some sort of review or advice, what sort
           of TOTAL moron would BOTHER??);
           FURTHER, once Grex is "cleaned" by the author, I don't see how
           a lawyer OR COURT would see the REPOSTER as OTHER than the
           "guilty-party" - Grex and the author DID THEIR JOB..
        2) This *IS* about Grex, their users, and what they ARE and where
           they are GOING.

        Should Grex then too take full and total responsibility for twits
        using a shell+lynx to download and then file-attach porn to
        themselves of their cohorts?? MP3's? What??

        OR, is Grex blameless in the stupidity of porn, email AND posting
        copies? I rather think that Grex becomes completely BLAMELESS in
        the case of some moron reposting an authors self-deleted material,
        (but please: lets get some lawyer-type to spew..).



        Which is it? Guilty, an accessory, or uninvolved? How in the Hell
        can you expect to attract AND ENHANCE the "focal interest" of
        "Grex is a BBS" if you act like Grex is a less flexible &
        convenient form of UselessNET? What happened to all that dross
        about "Grex is about conferencing.. Party is not what Grex is
        about.. We don't have a lynx or ftp problem..???" Right, the
        problem is that Grex, it's Borg and Members haven't a clue what
        they want to BECOME, but they know what they WANT - and they are
        "..willing to let someone ELSE die to to protect it!"

        As I recently said directly to Russ:
        "It was one thing when a BBS meant one or two of us at a time.
        logging in and leaving notes TO EACH OTHER.. WE EXPECTED IT! It's
        another thing to make available to the entire planet a system,
        it's 'notes' and have no allowance whatsoever for self-censoring.
        Even frickin' UselessNet posts are almost CERTAIN to die as unused
        caches disappear." (Russ just nodded, smiled and changed the
        subject ;-)

response 66 of 88:

Jul 17 02:31 UTC 2000

I think I'm in agreement with Scott, and as I've posted in another item, I
think that by posting stuff on Grex, you're giving Grex an implicit license to
publish it in this form. After I posted that, it occurred to me that I do web
site work for several trade magazines that have reader forums, and I probably
could get their lawyers, who certainly are familiar with the nuances of
copyright law, to give us a more informed opinion. With that in mind, I plan to
ask the following questions:

1. Who owns the copyright on items posted in reader forums, especially in the
absence of any agreement between the magazines and the users posting items and
responses? (My guess is that the user still has the copyright, but I may be
wrong about this.)

2. By posting an item or response, did the user implicitly give the magazine a
license to use that response when he or she posted it?

3. How far does that license extend? Are the magazines only licensed to use it
in the forum or could they also use it elsewhere?

4. Are the magazines obligated to delete an item or response posted by a user
if that user requests us to do it?

Can anyone else think of questions that should be asked?

response 68 of 88:

Jul 17 02:44 UTC 2000

#4 asks that very question, doesn't it? I made no mention of a scribble or
expunge command because the software we use does not have that feature. Users
would have to request that the post be deleted.

response 70 of 88:

Jul 17 05:40 UTC 2000

I think it would be very interesting to hear the responses you get to 
those questions. I will guess (only guess, mind you) that the answers 
will turn out to be as follows, conditioned on the assumption that there 
is no explicit agreement between the magazine and the posting users:

(1) The user owns the copyright, as long as it is the user's words.
    If the user had copied the words from elsewhere, the user does not
    obtain any rights, and may possibly be infringing on others'
(2) Yes
(3) Only for the forum it was posted in, not for print publication, for 
    example (unless there was an agreement)
(4) No (but remember, I am only guessing)

response 72 of 88:

Jul 17 17:16 UTC 2000

re sub 1:
        Why would grex be responsible for the liability of a user?
        Let B's legal-aid deal with A.

re sub 2:
        Why the hell would admin feel responsible - or WANT the
        responsibility - of pretending to own and echo A-text to the
        B-party?? That's an issue for B to pursue with A, (or B's attorney
        can request the material, they can't well request more with all
        the related anonymity, now can they?)

re sub 3:
        B is purporting that the material is a quote of A's material.
        Will you now pretend that "quotes" can't be emulated? Or, that A
        can't simply deny authorship? Anonymity is a two-edged blade, is
        it not?
        See "re sub 2" and "re sub 1".

        We're back to specious arguments.. WHAT and WHY is grex? Cut to
        the chase - then, before we play "pretend we're a magazine",
        please read the fine-print on submissions - articles, letters,
        etc. (this applies elsewhere, not to the prior post).

        Let's also play with the oft-mentioned "cliques" of bbs-users and
        party-users - as well as the PTB feelings that Grex *IS* it's bbs.

        To date, there is NEVER a "greeting" in Picospan or Backtalk that
        talks about whom owns what, such as a newspaper or magazine
        would. It's not in a greeting or join, not in 'help' and 
        apparently, not even the PTB have a clue what they want to say.
        WHY?

        Further, there has been, (to my knowledge), not a bit of
        discussion concerning the future of "conferencing" on or via Grex
        in light of Goals, Community, Mission, Future, or whatever else..
        Instead, there is a truly conservative manner, (even clandestine
        and parochial), in approaching the simple concept of deperming one
        lousy file. The arguments against it wander all over the place in
        hopes that one or more "lucky shots" will hit something.
        WHY?

response 74 of 88:

Jul 17 19:33 UTC 2000

        I neglected to notice: Was the log to be depermed BEFORE the admin
        got involved?

        Then too: Why is the staff manually involved, again?