CaliforniaKid wrote:lol. Thanks for the warm fuzzies. Somebody named alex had posted that Emma was ticked off when Joseph (insert your favorite euphemism here)'d Fanny. Dunamis indicated that alex's implication was distasteful. I replied that it's Joseph's actions that were distasteful. I think that's why I was suspended: back-talking a mod. They didn't give me an official explanation though.
It's actually probably good for me. I can use all that time to go outside and get some exercise.
Or, as is more likely, I can sit here in front of my computer lurking on this board instead. :-P
CK, lesson numero uno on MAD. Juliann(Dunamis) doesn't like to have her manhood challenged. She's a snipe, and if you cross her, she will whinge until your ears bleed, or try to intimdate you with threats of being banned from their backyard club, or *gasp* even worse, 12 point arial red print superimposed in your posts.
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi
What does suspended mean? Can you still read and just not post?
Because, CK, I replied to your latest message over there re your MAD Papers project. I thought you might get a chance to read through it on Sunday. Once the week starts I'm really short on time so might not catch up with you again til next w/end. Not that the whole thing rests on my presence, lol.
I'm still trying to feel my way there. I'm not altogether sure what is and isn't OK. I think it is actually easier to figure it out when there is some emphasis on rules because otherwise it can get very subjective. I know that modding a board is always somewhat subjective but I mean if you have the "free-for-all" as they called it then who knows where the line is? If there is a practice of suspending and banning posters, it would be important to know where the lines are if you want to keep your privileges to post.
I had a heckuva time trying to figure out the "no personalized threads" rule. I just couldn't get what that means. Then I tried to explain it as perhaps RfM being more about conversations and MADB being more about formal discussions of objective topics (or something like that). That remark wasn't all that well received by some. It's hard to relax and get comfortable if your presence is seemingly viewed through some mistaken preconceptions, I found. (As in, I'm an ex-member and I post at RfM. That's two strikes right there, lol). (by the way, I understand it now after Ray explained it to me, duh).
I'd like to read the material there and post when I have something to say though so it's worth it to me for now to try and see things from their point of view and not give a reason to kick me out. I don't have the BIC background or Mormon family and friends or any history with participants of different boards so in that way I'm different from some others who have reasons and history to have differences of opinion with each other.
From what I've seen so far, you can't be too critical on a personal level of any of the Mormon prophets. That would seem to be a given. But, believe it or not, there is more room for openness there than in some other places I've been; not necessarily other discussion boards but in real life, like very fundy churches I have known. I think if that forum were only for toughened apologists there may be more leeway but they seem to want regular members to feel somewhat comfortable there. That is one of the reasons I have read why they give some people a short lead. That is understandable to me. They want to make sure that Mormons there aren't exposed to too much rancorous criticism. Otherwise, why would they even want to participate there? I don't really enjoy a lot of heat and no substance and if there's too much of it I don't find it very pleasant. I don't think posting there means you support everything admin does or the church, of course. And if you have to watch where you step in order to maintain your privileges I can live with that. It's not my style to be harshly critical of a specific person and I try to avoid generalizations. For instance, I had a really bad experience with a Mormon bishop that nearly swamped my membership tenure on day one. But I can't say that is reflective of Mormonism at large or that all bishops are mean and nasty and irrational and bullying. Just the one that happened to preside over my baptism. What can I say - I tried Mormonism, didn't fit, left. I'm still interested in discussing it but don't want to fight about it. I can be polite on their board. That still may not be enough to save my bacon ultimately. Especially if they take into consideration what you post on other boards. It's just a good thing there are several boards around now, to fit with the various needs of anyone interested in Mormonism for whatever reason.
CK, here's hoping after the time we've put in on that thread that you'll be back soon and will last around there for some time to come. :)
No, I can't even read it. Maybe whatever you posted there you could PM on this board and I could mull it over.
Yeah, It's not that big a deal to me that I got suspended. I played enough organized sports in school to know that when you argue with the ref, you get in trouble. I respect their need to have some semblance of order. In fact, when I start a thread, I don't want people drive-by posting or sniping. So I'm willing to abide by the rules and take whatever consequences are necessary.
Now if I got permanently banned, I might go into serious withdrawals and die or something.
CaliforniaKid wrote:No, I can't even read it. Maybe whatever you posted there you could PM on this board and I could mull it over.
Yeah, It's not that big a deal to me that I got suspended. I played enough organized sports in school to know that when you argue with the ref, you get in trouble. I respect their need to have some semblance of order. In fact, when I start a thread, I don't want people drive-by posting or sniping. So I'm willing to abide by the rules and take whatever consequences are necessary.
Now if I got permanently banned, I might go into serious withdrawals and die or something.
Actually, no... when you get permanently banned, you come here and finally realize what living really is.
Or we could just wait til Monday when you can read there again? There's something kinda weird about hammering it out here, hehe.
My main point this time was to verify first that MADB does actually own copyright of anything that is posted there. I know that is their stated policy. I wonder first if that statement alone does, in law, grant them ownership. Also, when you formalize some of that material; i.e., into your proposed e-pub, does the copyright ownership automatically remain with MADB (assuming they already have it because of their statement to that effect and the fact that posters presumably agree by the mere fact of posting there).
I'm thinking of an outside party (a non-participant at FAIR) who may want to submit some material. The procedure is that they have to post it first on the board. That act alone, as it stands, would seem to assign copyright to MADB. At best, as it stands, it is "joint ownership". This would be a potential deal-breaker is all I'm saying. Authors generally don't want to sign away all their rights or their control of their own material. Even sharing ownership of copyright may not be satisfactory as it may mean that loss of control over what happens to the material.
I think the two most important elements are to verify how the copyright would work and to ensure that the material does not get altered (without writer's input and permission) or sold (without a specific agreement with the writer re how this would work; i.e., do the proceeds get shared?)
These are the kinds of major details I would not leave hanging before proceeding with this venture.
I didn't comment specifically on the new draft of the agreement as my post was already really long and assuming that MADB does already own copyright of posts on that board, is the agreement superfluous? This is what I'm wondering. If we can verify the status of that copyright thing, then we can hammer out what the agreement should include.
Or we could just wait til Monday when you can read there again? There's something kinda weird about hammering it out here, hehe.
My main point this time was to verify first that MADB does actually own copyright of anything that is posted there. I know that is their stated policy. I wonder first if that statement alone does, in law, grant them ownership. Also, when you formalize some of that material; i.e., into your proposed e-pub, does the copyright ownership automatically remain with MADB (assuming they already have it because of their statement to that effect and the fact that posters presumably agree by the mere fact of posting there).
I'm thinking of an outside party (a non-participant at FAIR) who may want to submit some material. The procedure is that they have to post it first on the board. That act alone, as it stands, would seem to assign copyright to MADB. At best, as it stands, it is "joint ownership". This would be a potential deal-breaker is all I'm saying. Authors generally don't want to sign away all their rights or their control of their own material. Even sharing ownership of copyright may not be satisfactory as it may mean that loss of control over what happens to the material.
I think the two most important elements are to verify how the copyright would work and to ensure that the material does not get altered (without writer's input and permission) or sold (without a specific agreement with the writer re how this would work; i.e., do the proceeds get shared?)
These are the kinds of major details I would not leave hanging before proceeding with this venture.
I didn't comment specifically on the new draft of the agreement as my post was already really long and assuming that MADB does already own copyright of posts on that board, is the agreement superfluous? This is what I'm wondering. If we can verify the status of that copyright thing, then we can hammer out what the agreement should include.
We've had a discussion here about their supposed copywrite. I don't remember the outcome, but you could search for the thread. My question would be, if something is copywrited elsewhere, or posted elsewhere and taken from there to MAD, is it then copywrited to MAD? We're often quoted there; because we're quoted there does that give MAD copywrite on our words?
CaliforniaKid wrote:Now if I got permanently banned, I might go into serious withdrawals and die or something.
Actually, no... when you get permanently banned, you come here and finally realize what living really is.
There is indeed a sense of withdrawal and hurt, but at least you would lose that feeling of always having to worry whether you are stepping on a moderator's eggshell and wondering if they will respond to you in a capricious and punitive manner.
Re a post or passage from elsewhere being posted there I do not think that transfers copyright to MADB. It looks like their intention is to claim copyright for a post that is posted on their board by the material's author. My question is whether just by saying that you claim copyright does that make it so, even if the author would seem to accept that condition by posting there. As copyright automatically, by law, belongs to the author I would think you have to enter into a formal signed contract in which copyright is transferred. For the informal environment of a message board, perhaps it doesn't matter - they state they hold copyright and posters obviously agree to that or they wouldn't post (or don't notice/care/read the rules). When you are talking about taking that material and putting it into another form in another venue (and there was also some mention of a compilation perhaps even being sold) then it would be prudent to specifically check out these issues and check on the legal points involved. This is the process that California Kid is going through now.
On the surface of it, it does seem like it should be simple. But when people are giving away rights (an author's right to own and control their own material) and asking people to sign contracts, it is obviously best for all parties to get it right. That's primarily why I jumped into the discussion, because I am interested in the copyright issue and it was mentioned somewhere that it's simple and doesn't need to get complicated. The thing is, it can actually be more complex than people realize and that should be kept in mind. I think this process is more involved than maybe CK and others expected but it's by far preferable to sort it out first than to run into problems later. I think it's obvious that neither side, in that setting, would be trying to best the other (as I'm assuming that most participants would be LDS or LDS-friendly) and so it would be too bad if a disagreement about the basics derailed the project. That's pretty much all I was trying to say - that it isn't necessarily all that simple, that it's wise to check out the legal details, that it's worth putting in the research time now so there's smooth sailing afterwards.
One interesting fact I came across in some online research I did into copyright law is that even if you have a contract, if the terms violate existing applicable law, the contract is void. For instance, if your contract states it is "work for hire" but the conditions of the work do not meet the definition for "work for hire" then your contract is void. This would have a major impact on the issue of who holds copyright. For example, if it is work for hire, the company/individual who hired the author holds the copyright. If the circumstances do not meet the work for hire definition, it is NOT work for hire, no matter what your contract says. In this case, the author would own the copyright.
That is, obviously, a huge legal distinction. That's primarily why I jumped in to the discussion on CK's MADB thread. It just isn't so simple as some people may think, as you can see. It might work out fine for the more informal message board venue but as soon as you start talking about a wider distribution and perhaps even sales, you are setting up a situation that could become very antagonistic. Next thing you know, there may be legal difficulties and then the project (e-publication) is shut down, because why would MADB/FAIR want to expose themselves to that? And authors, too, would shy away. I can see a good idea running into such a bad end if these issues aren't settled first.
The best thing might be that copyright rests with the author (as that is a legal precedent anyway) and that the author grants USE RIGHTS to MADB, clearly defined, on a one-time-only basis or something along those lines. However, if MADB already owns copyright, that changes the dynamics or if it is shown that they do not, just because they state they do, they may decline to be involved in the e-pub. Either way, it's good to resolve it before the thing starts. It isn't that it is an antagonistic situation now as basically if you want to participate it's there and if you don't, you can just stay out of it. But part of the plan, so I read, was to bring in outside authors/participants. That is another good reason why these issues should be looked into and resolved first. It would be too bad if future misunderstandings sunk the e-pub.
Nightingale wrote:Thanks, harmony. I will look up that thread.
Re a post or passage from elsewhere being posted there I do not think that transfers copyright to MADB. It looks like their intention is to claim copyright for a post that is posted on their board by the material's author. My question is whether just by saying that you claim copyright does that make it so, even if the author would seem to accept that condition by posting there. As copyright automatically, by law, belongs to the author I would think you have to enter into a formal signed contract in which copyright is transferred. For the informal environment of a message board, perhaps it doesn't matter - they state they hold copyright and posters obviously agree to that or they wouldn't post (or don't notice/care/read the rules). When you are talking about taking that material and putting it into another form in another venue (and there was also some mention of a compilation perhaps even being sold) then it would be prudent to specifically check out these issues and check on the legal points involved. This is the process that California Kid is going through now.
On the surface of it, it does seem like it should be simple. But when people are giving away rights (an author's right to own and control their own material) and asking people to sign contracts, it is obviously best for all parties to get it right. That's primarily why I jumped into the discussion, because I am interested in the copyright issue and it was mentioned somewhere that it's simple and doesn't need to get complicated. The thing is, it can actually be more complex than people realize and that should be kept in mind. I think this process is more involved than maybe CK and others expected but it's by far preferable to sort it out first than to run into problems later. I think it's obvious that neither side, in that setting, would be trying to best the other (as I'm assuming that most participants would be LDS or LDS-friendly) and so it would be too bad if a disagreement about the basics derailed the project. That's pretty much all I was trying to say - that it isn't necessarily all that simple, that it's wise to check out the legal details, that it's worth putting in the research time now so there's smooth sailing afterwards.
One interesting fact I came across in some online research I did into copyright law is that even if you have a contract, if the terms violate existing applicable law, the contract is void. For instance, if your contract states it is "work for hire" but the conditions of the work do not meet the definition for "work for hire" then your contract is void. This would have a major impact on the issue of who holds copyright. For example, if it is work for hire, the company/individual who hired the author holds the copyright. If the circumstances do not meet the work for hire definition, it is NOT work for hire, no matter what your contract says. In this case, the author would own the copyright.
That is, obviously, a huge legal distinction. That's primarily why I jumped in to the discussion on CK's MADB thread. It just isn't so simple as some people may think, as you can see. It might work out fine for the more informal message board venue but as soon as you start talking about a wider distribution and perhaps even sales, you are setting up a situation that could become very antagonistic. Next thing you know, there may be legal difficulties and then the project (e-publication) is shut down, because why would MADB/FAIR want to expose themselves to that? And authors, too, would shy away. I can see a good idea running into such a bad end if these issues aren't settled first.
The best thing might be that copyright rests with the author (as that is a legal precedent anyway) and that the author grants USE RIGHTS to MADB, clearly defined, on a one-time-only basis or something along those lines. However, if MADB already owns copyright, that changes the dynamics or if it is shown that they do not, just because they state they do, they may decline to be involved in the e-pub. Either way, it's good to resolve it before the thing starts. It isn't that it is an antagonistic situation now as basically if you want to participate it's there and if you don't, you can just stay out of it. But part of the plan, so I read, was to bring in outside authors/participants. That is another good reason why these issues should be looked into and resolved first. It would be too bad if future misunderstandings sunk the e-pub.
It's a huge issue to those who post seriously, not just the noisy among us. It seems like Kevin Graham was one that took exception to it, as did Mr Scratch, If I recall correctly, and a few others who have since migrated here. Someone used to put a copywrite notation at the end of each of their posts. I don't know if that voided MAD's assertion that they held the copywrite for all posts or not.
harmony wrote: It's a huge issue to those who post seriously, not just the noisy among us. It seems like Kevin Graham was one that took exception to it, as did Mr Scratch, If I recall correctly, and a few others who have since migrated here. Someone used to put a copywrite notation at the end of each of their posts. I don't know if that voided MAD's assertion that they held the copywrite for all posts or not.
I'm not convinced that MAD can have a poster's copyright assigned to them just by virtue of posting on the board. I actually had just added a note to the discussion between CK and Nightingale over there to this effect. Under the applicable laws, assigning ownership of a copyright can only be done via a written, signed instrument. A "click-through" acceptance would not seem to be sufficient, although it could perhaps be enough to provide an implied license for use (typically limited to just the forum and subsequent discussion, by the way). So although MAD says that you give them your copyright when you post, doesn't mean it's necessarily the case. And when they start cross-posting or otherwise including outside material in a post, it seems that the waters only get murkier. The basic principle remains that the ownership of a copyright remains with the author, unless a specific signed, written instrument conveys it to another. It would be interesting to get an actual intellectual property attorney to comment on this.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)