User talk:Geo.plrd/copyr2

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For this, we have to define "misuse". GofG ||| Talk 23:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Bravo!!! It looks magnificent!!! I'll make a few minor changes that should not matter to anyone.

Anyone else have some thoughts on this?--Aschlafly 23:07, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, "misuse" has to be defined. Am I allowed to burn the entire content on DVD and sell it? Am I allowed to mirror the site and host my ads all around it? (I) seems to imply it, but it might fall under "misuse". (III) looks a bit confusing to me, considering that (I) and (II) already cover pretty much all usage rights (Then again, I'm not a lawyer.). Maybe it would be better to put (III) first, it strikes me as the most important part that other parts refer to. (IV) looks like it belongs into Conservapedia:General disclaimer, it doesn't really have real connections to copyright and usage rights in my eyes. In general, it should maybe be clearer that Conservapedia and not its editors hold the copyright. Right now, (I) indirectly admits that Conservapedia has some sort of power, but (III) doesn't say who the content is copyrighted to.
And maybe this thing should be linked to from a more prominent spot if you really want others to give input. I only noticed it because I still monitor your Talk page. --Sid 3050 23:27, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
I think it's in a great condition, just needs to be reworded into "legal lingo". --Hojimachongtalk 23:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Misuse

Add ideas here *Attempts to discredit Conservapedia

    • I think this is WAY too restrictive. It would make pretty much ALL current news reports and blogs that reported on Conservapedia guilty of copyright violation. And I'm (still) not a lawyer, but what does Fair Use say there? --Sid 3050 23:39, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Good points, Sid. I think we could delete that item you reference ("Attempts to discredit Conservapedia"). We respect free speech rights to criticize us.--Aschlafly 23:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Strike Geo. 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Changing information negatively and then citing Conservapedia
  • Harming an editor in some way, such as publishing his name with his entries in a way that hurts his employment
  • Copying the entire site and using it to confuse potential visitors in some manner (Forking)
  • Copying material and then incorporating it into something that claims a new copyright that is asserted back against Conservapedia or an editor


Confused by something.

The proposal states: "You agree to waive and indemnify this and all affiliated sites from claims for liability resulting from use of the content contained herein."

I assume this means ".......... for use of the content herein by you" or "....for the use by you of ...

Otherwise doesn't it make any user liable for anything?

--British_cons (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

i am going to add your suggestions. Geo. 00:19, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Is this True?

The document goes on to say: "This is a binding legal document. By using this site you agree to be bound by it." Is this true? Is it really a binding legal document just because it says it is? And can we really insist that people be bound by it when they probably haven't read it? Or is it going to be on the front page? --British_cons (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is. When you go onto a site you agree to abide by the rules without even seeing them. Copyright goes into effect at creation, so they will have to obey it. Geo. 00:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Hi. Can I assume that your response, “Yes, it is.” is in response to my question, “Is this true?” and not in response to the question, “Or is it going to be on the front page?”?

Anyway, if you’re convinced that’s fine – though it sounds a bit strange to me. For instance, suppose we introduced a rule stating, “Anybody quoting this material must pay 500 dollars.” We could then chase all the people who quote from us even though they didn’t know the rule existed. In fact it’s even better than that. Rule V makes things retroactive – so we could demand money from people who didn’t know the rule existed in respect of a rule which didn’t exist at the time they broke it.

OK. This may be an absurd example - but there is already some criticism of the legal statement on the front page, and it would be well to be quite clear on this and the retroactive question before posting it. --British_cons (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

i am removing 5. Geo. 20:41, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


Misuse

In the clause below there seems to redundancy in the introduction and sub-points. This license can and will be revoked if you misuse content in any way, shape, or form, such as causing harm to Conservpedia or its editors. For the purposes of this section, misuse is defined as;

   * Changing information negatively and then citing Conservapedia
   * Harming an editor in some way, such as publishing his name with his entries in a way that hurts his employment
   * Copying the entire site and using it to confuse potential visitors in some manner (Forking)
   * Copying material and then incorporating it into something that claims a new copyright that is asserted back against Conservapedia or an editor 

The part about causing harm to an editor is duplicated. Might I suggest something like:

This license can and will be revoked if you misuse content in any way. For the purposes of this section, misuse includes;

   * Changing information negatively and then citing Conservapedia
   * Harming an editor in some way, such as publishing his name with his entries in a way that hurts his employment
   * Copying the entire site and using it to confuse potential visitors in some manner (Forking)
   * Copying material and then incorporating it into something that claims a new copyright that is asserted back against Conservapedia or an editor 


I'm also not clear what the final point, "Copying material and then incorporating it into something that claims a new copyright that is asserted back against Conservapedia or an editor "actually means. --British_cons (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I take information from Conservapedia, put it on my website, claim a copyright and sue Conservapedia for breaking a copyright, I believe. GofG ||| Talk 17:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


AH, OK now I see it. Perhaps it could be worded somewhat more transparently? Though, now I think about, that's really two points, isn't it? First off, there should be a prohibition (I suppose)against copying and claiming copyright. Then there needs to be an additional prohibition saying that if you do violate the first one then you shouldn't subsequently claim that Conservapedia has violated the copyright you have fraudulently claimed. But - if the first point is enforceable and demonstrable then the second one isn't necessary is it? And if it's not demonstrable then the second one is unenforceable. I guess that's why lawyers are rich. --British_cons (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
Personal tools