|
|
| Author |
Message |
realprde
|
|
Why?
| 
May 12 15:00 UTC 2004 |
Why is GreX's staff spending time harassing users, when, not only is
the new, NextGreX not being worked on, but OldGreX's Internet
connection has been falling apart for weeks?
|
| 30 responses total. |
kip
|
|
response 1 of 30:
|
May 12 15:07 UTC 2004 |
Because staff gets busy responding to all the various emails, requests and
complaints that come into this system and that takes up a fair amount of staff
time that could perhaps be more usefully applied to those other things you
mentioned.
I'm pretty sure that there is no way to make everyone happy. Had I responded
to other complaints first, I'm sure there would be a complaint about staff
not dealing with a copyright infringement issue. It's a juggling act and
we're doing the best we can.
Sorry that it's not making you happy.
|
tod
|
|
response 2 of 30:
|
May 12 15:17 UTC 2004 |
When did staff start caring about copyrights and what are your qualifications
for identifying direct, contributory, or vicarious infringements? Aren't
staffers supposed to be doing more important things like investigating the
SDSL? That'll be the closest you can get to "make everyone happy" rather than
your minute account freezing of users that "annoy" you.
|
aruba
|
|
response 3 of 30:
|
May 12 15:36 UTC 2004 |
Grex has always had a policy of removing copyrighted material when requested
to do so. This has come up several times before.
|
tod
|
|
response 4 of 30:
|
May 12 15:41 UTC 2004 |
It makes total sense. The only part I'm a little fuzzy on is the freezing
of user accounts. Why does that occur and what happens afterward?
|
jp2
|
|
response 5 of 30:
|
May 12 15:48 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 6 of 30:
|
May 12 15:51 UTC 2004 |
re #5
Was your material protected by copyright?
|
jp2
|
|
response 7 of 30:
|
May 12 18:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 8 of 30:
|
May 12 18:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 9 of 30:
|
May 12 18:32 UTC 2004 |
What do you mean "automatic"? Did you have put copyright notice on the
material prior to its infringement?
|
kip
|
|
response 10 of 30:
|
May 12 18:42 UTC 2004 |
I believe JP is referring to the Berne Convention which entered into force
in the US on March 1, 1989 which basically means that your copyright is
already automatic for materials written since then.
|
jp2
|
|
response 11 of 30:
|
May 12 19:03 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 12 of 30:
|
May 12 19:16 UTC 2004 |
I didn't know you were a publisher..
|
cyklone
|
|
response 13 of 30:
|
May 12 20:51 UTC 2004 |
Nevertheless, I believe jp is correct. I also fail to see why simply deleting
the offending post, which aruba claims is existing grex policy, led to the
more intrusive locking of the user's account.
|
tod
|
|
response 14 of 30:
|
May 12 21:25 UTC 2004 |
Isn't locking the user's account part of the standard procedure for dealing
with copyright infringement? Don't tell me this list I'm compiling of
infringements by Grexers won't result in account lockout. C'mon! ;)
|
soup
|
|
response 15 of 30:
|
May 12 23:10 UTC 2004 |
WAIT...wasn't it said that there is no standard policy on GreX?
|
realprde
|
|
response 16 of 30:
|
May 12 23:11 UTC 2004 |
It was said.
|
aruba
|
|
response 17 of 30:
|
May 13 05:15 UTC 2004 |
Note: I am not a staff member, so I don't know exactly how staff has dealt
with this in the past. I do know that posts were removed (which kip did),
but I don't know if accounts were locked. It sounds like kip consulted
with other staff members before he did what he did.
|
jp2
|
|
response 18 of 30:
|
May 13 12:46 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 19 of 30:
|
May 14 18:33 UTC 2004 |
I have no problem with the additional "punishment" of account locking (which
has subsequently been undone): This wasn't an accidental case of posting a
work unknown to be copyrighted, or not understanding copyrights: realugly
deliberately posted someone else's work and called it his own. I don't have
proof, but I think it highly likely it was done hoping to get a reaction,
i.e. he acted like a punk.
|
twenex
|
|
response 20 of 30:
|
May 14 20:09 UTC 2004 |
I wouldn't be too surprised if ugger bugger *didn't* understand copyright,
but ignorance is no defence.
|
jp2
|
|
response 21 of 30:
|
May 14 20:20 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 22 of 30:
|
May 14 21:38 UTC 2004 |
Lets just call it what it was. Realugly posted something he found on the
Internet posted by another Grexer. Intentions aside, we know that much
happened. We also know the "other" Grexer complained about copyright.
Where it starts to get weird is when staff decided to lock the account of
Realugly after the scribbled the posting. Why did staff feed a troll?
|
scott
|
|
response 23 of 30:
|
May 15 12:13 UTC 2004 |
Why do *you* feed the trolls, Todd?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 24 of 30:
|
May 16 00:07 UTC 2004 |
Re: #21: What exactly did jep personally do to / on grex worthy of locking
his account? As you knew before you asked the question, if anyone's account
should have been locked, it would have been valerie's.
|