A Question to the Forum Administrator Regarding "Copyright"

[GuestGuest]

WTF?

James Gordon:

"I have added the following to the forum rules.

Copyright Ownership:-

All  posts made on the EF are the "property" of the respective authors. Anyone who wants to copy the content for a another website must obtain the author's permission before copying and pasting an EF post on any other website."

So let me get this straight.

I would have to JOIN the Ed Forum for no other reason than to simply ask for permission from someone who posted something there?

How fucked up is that?

And what happens if I don't ask for permission since I don't want to join?

Does this website get into copyright trouble if I do?

Totally fucked up.

Or should I even care if someone over there doesn't like it and post what I want to post, when I want to post it here?

I can understand about them axing Von Pein about what he was doing and all, but why the hell should it affect me?

Greg, I don't want to get this site into any trouble, but occasionally, I like to post good sound research from over there to over here.

Do I really have to join the Ed Forum for no other reason than to ask someone's permission to use their research?

Am I not reading this correctly?

Greg, what to do?

[BC_II]

Yeah a mod blasted a link I made here to a wonderfully discussed topic concerning the texas theater....that was unfortunate as all hell. If we can't even do that then its pretty gloomy. Jeff you won't be able to link here unfortunately.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

WTF?

James Gordon:

"I have added the following to the forum rules.

Copyright Ownership:-

All  posts made on the EF are the "property" of the respective authors. Anyone who wants to copy the content for a another website must obtain the author's permission before copying and pasting an EF post on any other website."

So let me get this straight.

I would have to JOIN the Ed Forum for no other reason than to simply ask for permission from someone who posted something there?

How fucked up is that?

And what happens if I don't ask for permission since I don't want to join?

Does this website get into copyright trouble if I do?

Totally fucked up.

Or should I even care if someone over there doesn't like it and post what I want to post, when I want to post it here?

I can understand about them axing Von Pein about what he was doing and all, but why the hell should it affect me?

Greg, I don't want to get this site into any trouble, but occasionally, I like to post good sound research from over there to over here.

Do I really have to join the Ed Forum for no other reason than to ask someone's permission to use their research?

Am I not reading this correctly?

Greg, what to do?

Gordon never thinks anything through. He can stop non-members copying only by making the forum open to members only.

At the moment, it is legally a free-for-all - unless they have added a license condition to the terms of use when signing up. Not sure legally if this could apply to members who signed up before it was added.

In any case, we have this  in our TOS. "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license."

Which means our work can be copied and used for non-commercial purposes... by default... permission to use commercially would be required.

Prohibited commercial purposes under this license imo would include creating content for a site that makes money from advertising.

[GuestGuest]

WTF?

James Gordon:

"I have added the following to the forum rules.

Copyright Ownership:-

All  posts made on the EF are the "property" of the respective authors. Anyone who wants to copy the content for a another website must obtain the author's permission before copying and pasting an EF post on any other website."

So let me get this straight.

I would have to JOIN the Ed Forum for no other reason than to simply ask for permission from someone who posted something there?

How fucked up is that?

And what happens if I don't ask for permission since I don't want to join?

Does this website get into copyright trouble if I do?

Totally fucked up.

Or should I even care if someone over there doesn't like it and post what I want to post, when I want to post it here?

I can understand about them axing Von Pein about what he was doing and all, but why the hell should it affect me?

Greg, I don't want to get this site into any trouble, but occasionally, I like to post good sound research from over there to over here.

Do I really have to join the Ed Forum for no other reason than to ask someone's permission to use their research?

Am I not reading this correctly?

Greg, what to do?

Gordon never thinks anything through. He can stop non-members copying only by making the forum open to members only.

At the moment, it is legally a free-for-all - unless they have added a license condition to the terms of use when signing up. Not sure legally if this could apply to members who signed up before it was added.

In any case, we have this  in our TOS. "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license."

Which means our work can be copied and used for non-commercial purposes... by default... permission to use commercially would be required.

Prohibited commercial purposes under this license imo would include creating content for a site that makes money from advertising.

Hey Greg,

Thanks for that timely reply.

So Greg, to cut to the chase, for the time being, we can or cannot copy/paste stuff out of there and post it here? There are some good past nuggets to be had from over there, and it would be a damn shame to have to re-research every little bit of everything and try to build a case from there.

Is this Gordon's intention? To slow every other website down to a crawl while re-re-re researching everything from scratch while at the same time increasing his own membership by forcing one to signup just so a person can ask for "permission"?

I guess I still don't get it Greg.

In a nutshell, will I be allowed to post from over there to over here without joining and without causing this website any problems with them?

Thanks Greg

[greg_parkerAdmin]

WTF?

James Gordon:

"I have added the following to the forum rules.

Copyright Ownership:-

All  posts made on the EF are the "property" of the respective authors. Anyone who wants to copy the content for a another website must obtain the author's permission before copying and pasting an EF post on any other website."

So let me get this straight.

I would have to JOIN the Ed Forum for no other reason than to simply ask for permission from someone who posted something there?

How fucked up is that?

And what happens if I don't ask for permission since I don't want to join?

Does this website get into copyright trouble if I do?

Totally fucked up.

Or should I even care if someone over there doesn't like it and post what I want to post, when I want to post it here?

I can understand about them axing Von Pein about what he was doing and all, but why the hell should it affect me?

Greg, I don't want to get this site into any trouble, but occasionally, I like to post good sound research from over there to over here.

Do I really have to join the Ed Forum for no other reason than to ask someone's permission to use their research?

Am I not reading this correctly?

Greg, what to do?

Gordon never thinks anything through. He can stop non-members copying only by making the forum open to members only.

At the moment, it is legally a free-for-all - unless they have added a license condition to the terms of use when signing up. Not sure legally if this could apply to members who signed up before it was added.

In any case, we have this  in our TOS. "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license."

Which means our work can be copied and used for non-commercial purposes... by default... permission to use commercially would be required.

Prohibited commercial purposes under this license imo would include creating content for a site that makes money from advertising.

Hey Greg,

Thanks for that timely reply.

So Greg, to cut to the chase, for the time being, we can or cannot copy/paste stuff out of there and post it here? There are some good past nuggets to be had from over there, and it would be a damn shame to have to re-research every little bit of everything and try to build a case from there.

Is this Gordon's intention? To slow every other website down to a crawl while re-re-re researching everything from scratch while at the same time increasing his own membership by forcing one to signup just so a person can ask for "permission"?

I guess I still don't get it Greg.

In a nutshell, will I be allowed to post from over there to over here without joining and without causing this website any problems with them?

Thanks Greg

The issue is that Gordon doesn't understanding licensing. He has a knee-jerk reaction to every issue without fully understanding all sides of the issue, let alone the full ramifications of his alleged solutions.

His additional "rule" am certain, has been made without considering your concerns. He has not the nouse to foresee that non-members may want to use forum posts.

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think what he has written has any legal legs to stand on. He needs to actually look at the various international licenses that can be granted, and pick one.

Meanwhile, what he has added (again, just imo) does not over-ride the Fair Use doctrine:

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?


Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See, Fair Use Index, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

In short, if I want anything from the Ed Forum, I'm taking it - until such time as he goes private, or finds a license that actually would prohibit me.

[Mick_Purdy]

I'm no expert, but from where I sit, I think anybody trying to claim copy right on public writings in a public domain is fair game. I'm talking obviously about an authors original work being published on the Ed Forum etc. As Greg said above I'm almost certain it's a fair use issue. Nobody here is making money from the link or copy of the material. As long as credit is given I cannot see a problem. I can check this with Lawyers if we want from a production company.

Another thing which Greg has already alluded to is that as near as I can tell there is no license warnings anywhere which have been made public. 

James Gordon can write forum rules all he likes, but it ain't legal. It's just an internal  forum rule which is meaningless in the real world, as near as I can see.

[Mick_Purdy]

Just to add, I'm not registered to the Ed forum, I can visit that site as a member of the general public and when I do visit that site at no stage am I advised that the content I'm about to view is copyright, nor is there any warning of a possible breach of copyright if I copy or link to the material from there to another forum site.

Just sayin'

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Thanks Mick, I think we are on about the same page.

Although I don't think it is legally required to notify visitors of the license (or at least, I have never seen such a warning on any forum on any subject), it won't hurt to add it to our "welcome' notice at the top.

s or the Ed Forum... let's be real... Lee Farley had all his posts deleted. I deleted a high proportion of mine. That leaves slim pickings for any worthwhile research. Jim di offers some, but mostly just opinion. But apart from him, there is only Bart, Steve Thomas, Larry H, Robert Charles-Dunne and a very small handful of others - now or in the past, who have contributed any worthwhile research there. It is mostly speculation and tin-foil hat conspiracies. How the fuck they try and pass that off as educational material is beyond me.

So... to cut to the chase, speaking for myself, I will continue to copy material from there to here for the purpose of either critiquing it or lampooning it. The only way I will stop is if he makes the forum viewable for members only, or he finds a license which would legally prohibit me.

[Mick_Purdy]

Yes we are Greg, It is quite simply a public forum. Whilst I might not be able to contribute to that forum as unregistered member - most material is available to the general public and therefore  can be shared. As long as there is no financial gain or used for commercial reasons I think that's it in a nutshell, unless someone can state otherwise

[BC_II]

Thanks Mick, I think we are on about the same page.

Although I don't think it is legally required to notify visitors of the license (or at least, I have never seen such a warning on any forum on any subject), it won't hurt to add it to our "welcome' notice at the top.

s or the Ed Forum... let's be real... Lee Farley had all his posts deleted. I deleted a high proportion of mine. That leaves slim pickings for any worthwhile research. Jim di offers some, but mostly just opinion. But apart from him, there is only Bart, Steve Thomas, Larry H, Robert Charles-Dunne and a very small handful of others - now or in the past, who have contributed any worthwhile research there. It is mostly speculation and tin-foil hat conspiracies. How the fuck they try and pass that off as educational material is beyond me.

So... to cut to the chase, speaking for myself, I will continue to copy material from there to here for the purpose of either critiquing it or lampooning it. The only way I will stop is if he makes the forum viewable for members only, or he finds a license which would legally prohibit me.

My god Greg why in the living hell would Farley's posts be deleted? I mean unless he did the deed himself like yourself, then I can understand that but its sad as hell to even know you and his old posts cannot be retrieved ...the work and research you guys do is timeless. There was a discussion concerning the Texas theater arrests and I linked to the excellent topic here of the same name and topic and was told I wasn't allowed to link to Greg's post due to a possibility of the Greg dominating the discussion ...

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Thanks Mick, I think we are on about the same page.

Although I don't think it is legally required to notify visitors of the license (or at least, I have never seen such a warning on any forum on any subject), it won't hurt to add it to our "welcome' notice at the top.

s or the Ed Forum... let's be real... Lee Farley had all his posts deleted. I deleted a high proportion of mine. That leaves slim pickings for any worthwhile research. Jim di offers some, but mostly just opinion. But apart from him, there is only Bart, Steve Thomas, Larry H, Robert Charles-Dunne and a very small handful of others - now or in the past, who have contributed any worthwhile research there. It is mostly speculation and tin-foil hat conspiracies. How the fuck they try and pass that off as educational material is beyond me.

So... to cut to the chase, speaking for myself, I will continue to copy material from there to here for the purpose of either critiquing it or lampooning it. The only way I will stop is if he makes the forum viewable for members only, or he finds a license which would legally prohibit me.

My god Greg why in the living hell would Farley's posts be deleted? I mean unless he did the deed himself like yourself, then I can understand that but its sad as hell to even know you and his old posts cannot be retrieved ...the work and research you guys do is timeless. There was a discussion concerning the Texas theater arrests and I linked to the excellent topic here of the same name and topic and was told I wasn't allowed to link to Greg's post due to a possibility of the Greg dominating the discussion ...

Lee requested his work be deleted there. Hopefully he himself copied and saved it before that happened.

James can do as he pleases, but I note that one person has linked twice to here since then with nothing happening.

Running a forum is easy... until it's not. And he has more than his share of "not"s. But then, it's his fault anyway, for the knee-jerk decisions he has made along the way. 

What he is left with is mainly a bunch of people either debating in circles, or promoting dead and buried theories. Or both. It may be educational -- but certainly not in the manner he thinks.

[steely_dan]

Michael Clark has managed to get his Lees mixed up...and not for the first time   Most recent post.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22690-warning-to-forum-members-please-read-this/page/27/#comments

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Not hard to do when you have a Lee Forley and a Lee Farman...

[steely_dan]

I understand he thought he read it on the KeepKennedyCaseSpinning Forum.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

I understand he thought he read it on the KeepKennedyCaseSpinning Forum.

That explains it. Those troll punks would know their LEE Forley-Farmans from their HARVEY Farman-Forleys.

[GuestGuest]

Thanks Mick, I think we are on about the same page.

Although I don't think it is legally required to notify visitors of the license (or at least, I have never seen such a warning on any forum on any subject), it won't hurt to add it to our "welcome' notice at the top.

s or the Ed Forum... let's be real... Lee Farley had all his posts deleted. I deleted a high proportion of mine. That leaves slim pickings for any worthwhile research. Jim di offers some, but mostly just opinion. But apart from him, there is only Bart, Steve Thomas, Larry H, Robert Charles-Dunne and a very small handful of others - now or in the past, who have contributed any worthwhile research there. It is mostly speculation and tin-foil hat conspiracies. How the fuck they try and pass that off as educational material is beyond me.

So... to cut to the chase, speaking for myself, I will continue to copy material from there to here for the purpose of either critiquing it or lampooning it. The only way I will stop is if he makes the forum viewable for members only, or he finds a license which would legally prohibit me.

"So... to cut to the chase, speaking for myself, I will continue to copy material from there to here for the purpose of either critiquing it or lampooning it. The only way I will stop is if he makes the forum viewable for members only, or he finds a license which would legally prohibit me."

Thanks Greg, that's what I needed to know.

Peace

[GuestGuest]

Thanks Mick, I think we are on about the same page.

Although I don't think it is legally required to notify visitors of the license (or at least, I have never seen such a warning on any forum on any subject), it won't hurt to add it to our "welcome' notice at the top.

s or the Ed Forum... let's be real... Lee Farley had all his posts deleted. I deleted a high proportion of mine. That leaves slim pickings for any worthwhile research. Jim di offers some, but mostly just opinion. But apart from him, there is only Bart, Steve Thomas, Larry H, Robert Charles-Dunne and a very small handful of others - now or in the past, who have contributed any worthwhile research there. It is mostly speculation and tin-foil hat conspiracies. How the fuck they try and pass that off as educational material is beyond me.

So... to cut to the chase, speaking for myself, I will continue to copy material from there to here for the purpose of either critiquing it or lampooning it. The only way I will stop is if he makes the forum viewable for members only, or he finds a license which would legally prohibit me.

My god Greg why in the living hell would Farley's posts be deleted? I mean unless he did the deed himself like yourself, then I can understand that but its sad as hell to even know you and his old posts cannot be retrieved ...the work and research you guys do is timeless. There was a discussion concerning the Texas theater arrests and I linked to the excellent topic here of the same name and topic and was told I wasn't allowed to link to Greg's post due to a possibility of the Greg dominating the discussion ...

Lee requested his work be deleted there. Hopefully he himself copied and saved it before that happened.

James can do as he pleases, but I note that one person has linked twice to here since then with nothing happening.

Running a forum is easy... until it's not. And he has more than his share of "not"s. But then, it's his fault anyway, for the knee-jerk decisions he has made along the way. 

What he is left with is mainly a bunch of people either debating in circles, or promoting dead and buried theories. Or both. It may be educational -- but certainly not in the manner he thinks.

Hey Greg,

I used to really enjoy those posts written by that guy named Lee Farley. Is he a member here? That guy made some excellent posts.

[steely_dan]

Jeff, Lee is an extremely valued member of the forum. From time to time he takes extended breaks but when he does post it's well worth reading. He's proof of the old adage.....quality not quantity.

[GuestGuest]

Jeff, Lee is an extremely valued member of the forum. From time to time he takes extended breaks but when he does post it's well worth reading. He's proof of the old adage.....quality not quantity.

Hey Steely,

Yeah, I can't tell you how many times in the past from reading his posts, that all of a sudden a bright white light bulb went off in my head and then how it suddenly all made perfect sense.

I can understand very well about taking breaks too, it's like Salandria said, "This case will wear you down and at times may even temporarily break you" or some such was the gist of it.

Yeah, I wish he would post more often and that completely sucks that his posts were removed. Maybe if Lee archived them before that happened, perhaps Greg could open up a thread just solely dedicated for those same posts and summaries. Fingers crossed. Yeah, he's top notch all the way.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

bumped for the lovely Rita Linda Meter Maid.

LOVELY LINDA

Lovely Linda, datebook raver
Lovely Linda, datebook raver

Lovely Linda, datebook raver
Facts can't come between us
When things get tough, you point the other way

Standing by a pirate cypher 
Is isolating Linda
Filling in the meaning with google translate
While in her avatar she looks much younger
But the baggage she must shoulder
Makes her look like a giant twat, eh

Lovely Linda, datebook raver
May I ask about authen--ticit--y
And if you are free to come clean with me? (Lovely datebook raver)

Linda

Took her down and tried to tell her
Had a laugh over her bluster
Told her I would really like to see some proof
Got the bird and Linda lied
Took her down - not anodyne 
While she sits on a sofa with Kent & Fezzo

Oh! lovely Linda, Lafitte made her
But we don't need another bull--shitt--er
Give us a wave  as you walk away
Lovely Linda datebook raver
(Lovely Linda, datebook raver) Linda, datebook raver
(Lovely Linda, datebook raver) oh, lovely Linda datebook raver  
(Lovely LESLIE, Nazi bingo)
No, they never will believe it

[lanceman]

Why wouldn’t excerpting content from EF posts fall under the “Fair Use” doctrine?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Sounds like they just want to make it more difficult to debunk the usual bullshit that is put out there.

[Steve Thomas]

In addition to obtaining permission from the original poster, I wonder when the original poster is going to start demanding residuals.

I don't mind someone copying things I've written, as long as they don't plagiarize it.

Or  misquote me.

Steve Thomas

PS: Thanks Greg

[Steve Thomas]

From Sound of Freedom to Ron DeSantis: how QAnon’s crazy conspiracy theories went mainstreamFrom Sound of Freedom to Ron DeSantis: how QAnon’s crazy conspiracy theories went mainstream
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/16/qanon-conspiracy-theory-sound-of-freedom-trump-desantis


"QAnon gamified these strands. The cryptic missives invited decoding and translation, and were purposefully vague enough that they could be interpreted in any number of ways. Like astrology or tarot cards, Q drops seemed freighted with meaning while lacking any specificity. One could log on, read the latest tea leaves and connect the latest dots, all the while binding oneself further to the web of paranoia. The phenomenon spread widely, roping in not just paranoid conspiracy theorists but puzzle solvers and people looking for community. And because there was so much cryptic messaging embedded in the discourse, it hardly mattered that those few things that might have been verifiable (such as Hillary Clinton being “detained” in October of 2017) were demonstrably false.

It turned out to be a remarkably successful formula;..."

Sound familiar?

Steve Thomas

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Sound familiar?

Absolutely.

You don't need to name names, but have you formed any opinion on who might be behind the datebook?

Maybe the first question should be, does it even exists?

[Steve Thomas]

"You don't need to name names, but have you formed any opinion on who might be behind the datebook?"

Greg,

No. I haven't been interested enough to care.

After reading the first couple of pages of Ganis's entries on Jean-Rene Souetre, I threw it down in disgust. The man didn't know what he was talking about.

Steve Thomas

[Sponsored content]