|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 123 responses total. |
jmsaul
|
|
response 82 of 123:
| 
Jul 8 14:31 UTC 2000 |
Re #80: Steve, you have a policy: /bbs/censored is publicly accessible.
If a staff member were to go change its perms so people couldn't
read it, they would be told to change it back. A policy is still
a policy even if your paying members didn't vote on it.
|
remmers
|
|
response 83 of 123:
|
Jul 8 14:40 UTC 2000 |
(Hm, discussion of this issue seems to have a way of floating from
from item to item. Now it's in the "search engines" item. It'd be
nice if it stayed in one place so people could easily refer to all
of it and other ongoing discussions didn't get sidetracked, but
obviously that's not happening.)
One thing we could address right now is better informing users as
to what "scribble" actually does. That wouldn't conflict with the
recent vote, and I think there was concensus that this would be
reasonable before this became a major issue spanning multiple
items.
I agree with Jan that the board shouldn't overturn a vote except
in extreme cases, like something that is blatantly illegal. That
would negate the concept of member-decided policy. How about
proceeding as follows:
(a) Consult an attorney with expertise in copyright law and online
communications. Preferably a specialist, although I don't know
how easy such a person would be to find. Preferably someone
not on Grex, so that they wouldn't be biased and could supply
a fresh perspective. Preferably a face-to-face meeting where
we could get feedback on the options that have been proposed
in discussions, ask follow-up questions, get clarification.
(b) Present the results of the consultation to the users. Then, as
Jan proposes in #78, the members could decide on the policy.
I have no idea if the cost of this would be within range of Grex's
budget.
This should be an agenda item for the next board meeting, which I
believe is July 24.
|
mary
|
|
response 84 of 123:
|
Jul 8 17:23 UTC 2000 |
I agree with John's suggested course of action. We can
afford a consultation and need one at this point.
|
jp2
|
|
response 85 of 123:
|
Jul 8 17:23 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
russ
|
|
response 86 of 123:
|
Jul 9 01:23 UTC 2000 |
Having lost in the democratic process, you're willing to destroy
Grex with legal bills just so you can have your way? Are you THAT
afraid that M-Net can't compete for mindshare (as opposed to s***d***
share)? You might want to watch out for Andover.net, which runs
Slashdot; Slashdot has NO mechanism for an author to de-publish text
once entered, and I'm sure they'd be seriously interested in avoiding a
decision which would leave them in someone's sights. The amount of
legal support Grex might get from them, among others, could surprise
you.
Someone should have taught you that you catch a lot more flies with
honey than with vinegar. But since you insist, I propose that you
get what you want... with enough vinegar to make it distasteful.
(Fair's fair.) See item 188.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 87 of 123:
|
Jul 9 03:18 UTC 2000 |
No, I'm not willing to sue Grex. Others, however, might be.
(And I *think* you'll find that /. has some interesting legal language
somewhere on that site licensing them to keep publishing user text.)
(You *could* do that here, of course, if you only care about legal risks,
not basic rights.)
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 88 of 123:
|
Jul 9 04:26 UTC 2000 |
Well, I can't find anything on /. -- but that doesn't mean they're safe, it
just means that they haven't had the issue come up yet. Salon.com's "BBS"
does permit people to remove their own posts, by the way.
|
prp
|
|
response 89 of 123:
|
Jul 9 14:44 UTC 2000 |
About all i know about copyrights and electronic communication:
Q: When somebody uses a dial-up line to infringe on a copyright,
can the phone company be held liable?
A: Well, there are grounds for a suit, but I doubt it would be
successful.
It seems that the copyright law is written so that anyone with
any involvement is liable. That would include typesetters in the
a traditional case.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 90 of 123:
|
Jul 9 17:25 UTC 2000 |
Actually, the phone company is about the only party you can be sure is
immune -- it's a common carrier. (ISPs have an immunity for material
posted by users, but it explicitly doesn't include copyright or trademark
infringement. They're still liable for those.)
|
gull
|
|
response 91 of 123:
|
Jul 9 19:57 UTC 2000 |
So if the item in question is posted on an indexed conference, are you then
going to sue Google.com to force them to remove their cached copy, too?
Stuff you stick on the web is stored in all kinds of places, just like
newspaper articles are archived in libraries. You can claim all you want
that that's an irrelevant analogy, but it seems pretty parallel to me. The
only difference is that libraries keep stuff for decades, and I suspect
Google's cache is turned over more often than that.
|
pfv
|
|
response 92 of 123:
|
Jul 9 22:03 UTC 2000 |
I'd say "Grex ain't Google; Neither Grex or Google are Uselessnet".
Now, if grex *IS* uselessnet (or if google is) - then fine: the
uselessnet rules apply.
Meanwhile, grex ain't "the net", and neither grex or picospan, nor
Backtalk are uselessnet.
It's not only the legalist mumbo-jumbo, it also is what Grex is
and where Grex is going/wants to go..
|
gull
|
|
response 93 of 123:
|
Jul 10 03:27 UTC 2000 |
The interesting thing is I actually was talked into supporting depermitting
the log, by the debate here. I still support it. What I take issue with is
jmsaul's current techniques of bringing in legal points that are only sort
of relevent, calling people names, and threatening legal action against
Grex. These are not the actions of someone who cares about a system too
much to let it make a bad choice; these are the actions of someone who can't
stand not getting their way. No one who really cared about Grex's fate
would threaten to sue the place. I think it's bad form.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 94 of 123:
|
Jul 10 04:07 UTC 2000 |
Look -- I said I was getting annoyed enough by people picking at me to
consider it. I've also said elsewhere, and I'll say it here, that I have no
intention of suing Grex. I'm really pissed off, because your paying
members made a stupid decision. There are times when I might enjoy
seeing a suit just to watch the smug smiles wiped off the faces of certain
Grexers, but it is in no way worth the effort it would take on my part to
haul you guys into court... plus, I honestly don't want to see Grex
destroyed anyway. All I'm planning on doing is leaving, because a system
that won't let people control their own text is not a system I can support
in any way.
However: legal points such as copyright or liability for defamatory postings
that Grex refuses to allow the poster to remove *are* potentially relevant
whether you like it or not. Grex doesn't exist in a vacuum; the laws of
the US apply to it, and someday, someone -- not me -- might wind up in a
situation where they feel they have to make use of them. You need to know
these things, especially when several people have made assertions about
ownership of posts that are blatantly false and could lead to very bad
decisions if they're believed.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 95 of 123:
|
Jul 10 04:25 UTC 2000 |
Just out of curiousity: How many other systems let you go in and erase your
posts at a later date?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 96 of 123:
|
Jul 10 04:35 UTC 2000 |
M-Net does, and has since 1991. Some Web-based systems do, others don't.
(Salon.com's Table Talk does. Slashdot doesn't appear to. I don't know that
either of those is exactly analogous to Grex.) I have no idea what the
various web-based systems do if a user asks them to remove something. My
guess is that they do it, because it's less hassle and doesn't really hurt
them unless they start getting so many requests it overloads their staff.
|
aruba
|
|
response 97 of 123:
|
Jul 10 05:31 UTC 2000 |
(I agree with #93.) I don't understand why any dispute over removing text
would ever escalate as far as a lawsuit. We can certainly avoid that by
having a policy that says someone who really really really wants their text
removed from the censored log can ask the staff to do so, and staff can do
it, provided the requester is the poster, yadda yadda yadda. Whatever.
We're not running a country here - we're allowed to allow for special cases.
It doesn't make sense to structure a policy around something that might
happen once in a great while, when we can deal with that easily on a
case-by-case basis.
|
jp2
|
|
response 98 of 123:
|
Jul 10 12:25 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 99 of 123:
|
Jul 10 13:22 UTC 2000 |
Re #94: Now you're saying, "I have no intention of suing Grex." That's
good, but I think what you said before was along the lines of, "I have
no intention of suing Grex presently." Slight difference there. I'm
glad you backed down, because you were starting to sound like a
lawyer. ;-)
Anyway, if Grex isn't going to deperm the censored log (my own
preference), then when is someone going to post a permanent notice
somwhere alerting everyone that "erase" and "scribble" really
mean "hide"? That can't possibly require a vote, can it?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 100 of 123:
|
Jul 10 14:09 UTC 2000 |
Re #97: What I'm wondering about that is: why not just let them do it
themselves? Are you having the staff do it as some kind of filter,
so the staff can decide if the poster is worthy of having their text
removed? Or whether the poster's reasons are "good enough" for
Grex's staff? Why insert the staff into the loop at all?
|
aruba
|
|
response 101 of 123:
|
Jul 10 14:31 UTC 2000 |
It's a compromise, Joe, between the current system and the proposal that was
voted down.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 102 of 123:
|
Jul 10 14:35 UTC 2000 |
Sure, but I'm asking what is gained by it.
|
aruba
|
|
response 103 of 123:
|
Jul 10 14:48 UTC 2000 |
Well, hopefully, it will take care of the legal issues you raised.
|
jp2
|
|
response 104 of 123:
|
Jul 10 15:07 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 105 of 123:
|
Jul 10 15:24 UTC 2000 |
That would be Russ' proposal. Mark's is merely that, instead of deleting the
text yourself, you send email to the staff, who will delete it for you. That
proposal is kind of insulting to the user base, and could get really annoying
for the staff, but as long as the staff don't have discretion but have to
remove what they're asked to remove, would cover Grex's legal butt.
Or was the intention that staff gets to decide whether a request should be
honored or not?
|
jep
|
|
response 106 of 123:
|
Jul 10 18:45 UTC 2000 |
Oh, shucks. Joe Saul is not going to sue Grex over this policy. Not
for money, not to prove his point, and not because he's mad. Let's
stick with some simple foolishness, and not escalate it to idiocy.
Joe's one of 'us'. So am I. So are all of those who have been using
Grex or M-Net seriously for any period of time. We all know one
another. We all know none of us are interested in destroying any
conferencing systems through legal conflict. The talk of a lawsuit is
worth a good yawn, and no more.
Joe's point is that someone who isn't one of 'us' might see an
opportunity, or get that mad, and that Grex may be vulnerable if that
happens. Joe is not the enemy. Neither are remmers, russ, aruba, or
anyone else in this item.
#97 is a good temporary compromise; a workable permanent one if the
current formal policy isn't changed.
Doesn't calling for a re-vote at this point feel a little like a school
board continually repeating a request for a millage increase until they
finally get it to pass? That sort of thing annoys me. I think the
voters got the issue wrong, but that doesn't mean there ought to be more
votes until they finally get it right.
|