If anyone thinks that the two towers of rd.net has not turned it's all seeing eye onto this forum they do so at their own peril.

It wouldn't surprise me if Richard has his minions scuttling about even now. I imagine I here the rustle of scratchy little feet in the walls. Begone stormcrow.

They gave us permission. It's all in the public domain. Copyright released. END OF STORY.

RS

RoaringAtheist wrote:Make one of Cali's, plx.

Done: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/224795/RD/RDF_C ... a-9962.rar

theropod wrote:If anyone thinks that the two towers of rd.net has not turned it's all seeing eye onto this forum they do so at their own peril.

It wouldn't surprise me if Richard has his minions scuttling about even now. I imagine I here the rustle of scratchy little feet in the walls. Begone stormcrow.

They gave us permission. It's all in the public domain. Copyright released. END OF STORY.

RS

No they said we could make a local archive. That is definitely NOT placing it in the public domain and it certainly isn't releasing the copyrights that they hold to all the material.

Thanks for all the effort and long sought after expertise that has gone into your fine work. Words fail me but I wish I could see ALL the threads!
If that Josh has deleted them then its hard luck but if by chance. Gratefully

mcgruff wrote:

crank wrote:As to the posters, again, we are doing nothing with the material that wasn't already done at RDnet.

Yeah but they own the copyright.

...

Who cares? It's the internet, and possession is 9/10ths anyway.

Apollonius wrote:

mcgruff wrote:

crank wrote:As to the posters, again, we are doing nothing with the material that wasn't already done at RDnet.

Yeah but they own the copyright.

Who cares? It's the internet, and possession is 9/10ths anyway.

Besides, it's highly questionable whether RDNet owns copyrighs to materials posted in the RDNet forum.

Beyond that, a copyright holder can only bring an infringement suit when they can show that commercial gain on the part of the alleged infringer has occurred or is intended, and nobody here is making money from any RDNet posted content, least that I know of.

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:

Apollonius wrote:

mcgruff wrote:

crank wrote:As to the posters, again, we are doing nothing with the material that wasn't already done at RDnet.

Yeah but they own the copyright.

Who cares? It's the internet, and possession is 9/10ths anyway.

Besides, it's highly questionable whether RDNet owns copyrighs to materials posted in the RDNet forum.

Beyond that, a copyright holder can only bring an infringement suit when they can show that commercial gain on the part of the alleged infringer has occurred or is intended, and nobody here is making money from any RDNet posted content, least that I know of.

If (and I do) I write open source software and if I found someone else had taken my code and was using it contrary to the licence (GPL/LGPL) by redistributing binaries that used the software with modifications but without providing the source changes then it does not matter if they made money out of that or not: they are violating the copyrights and I fail to see why there should be a commercial gain or consideration for my copyrights to be valid.

Your argument suggests open source software (or content) based copyrights are void and AFAIK every case that has ever been bought to trial then open source licenses win either through the other party not going to court or simply withdrawing the binaries or offering the code changes. Someone makes a commercial gain automatically by copying someone else's works because they then did not have to spent time and money creating that work themselves.

Lets consider Torrents of Movies. Do you think that the copyright holder is able to go after the torrent seeds ?. The seed has made no clear commercial gain out of the movie and yet copyright holders have successfully got at seeds as well as leeches. The leeches are like end users of open source software in that they save money (rather than making a gain) but when a leech starts seeding then they are redistributing and making available a copyrighted work contrary to the license holders rights. With most open source works the violation takes place when you modify the code and not publish the changes.

RD.net have the copyright and said local archive. It is though up to them to force the issue or issue a clarifying statement that would allow the archive to be made more widespread than just a local archive.

byofrcs wrote:...If (and I do) I write open source software and if I found someone else had taken my code and was using it contrary to the licence (GPL/LGPL) by redistributing binaries that used the software with modifications but without providing the source changes then it does not matter if they made money out of that or not: they are violating the copyrights and I fail to see why there should be a commercial gain or consideration for my copyrights to be valid...

Sorry but that is a false analogy. (at both the specific level and the level of processing the material.)

byofrcs wrote:...Your argument suggests open source software (or content) based copyrights are void ....

...that is only your extrapolation of the core claim.

RD.net have the copyright and said local archive. It is though up to them to force the issue or issue a clarifying statement that would allow the archive to be made more widespread than just a local archive.

What is the "original work" by RDNet which could attract copyright?

Doesn't the only claim to copyright of individual posts rely on the FUA provision that all material becomes property of RDNet? And has that form of presumption been tested? In what legal jurisdiction? What cases?

(EDIT - I made a mess of the quotes - now fixed )

econ41 wrote:

byofrcs wrote:...If (and I do) I write open source software and if I found someone else had taken my code and was using it contrary to the licence (GPL/LGPL) by redistributing binaries that used the software with modifications but without providing the source changes then it does not matter if they made money out of that or not: they are violating the copyrights and I fail to see why there should be a commercial gain or consideration for my copyrights to be valid...

Sorry but that is a false analogy. (at both the specific level and the level of processing the material.)

Nope, you're wrong. The license describes what you can or cannot do. Just because something can be taken for nothing doesn't mean you can ignore the license terms.

econ41 wrote:

byofrcs wrote:...Your argument suggests open source software (or content) based copyrights are void ....

...that is only your extrapolation of the core claim.

RD.net have the copyright and said local archive. It is though up to them to force the issue or issue a clarifying statement that would allow the archive to be made more widespread than just a local archive.

What is the "original work" by RDNet which could attract copyright?

Doesn't the only claim to copyright of individual posts rely on the FUA provision that all material becomes property of RDNet? And has that form of presumption been tested? In what legal jurisdiction? What cases?

(EDIT - I made a mess of the quotes - now fixed )

What is the "original work" of *any* publisher that could attract copyright ?. The act of providing the platform (or channel) is enough. Any of the contributors could have quite happily retained their copyright and published it through another channel but they chose RDNet as their label.

Like musicians wondering why their back catalogue is used like poker chips, the copyrights are easily detached from the original creator and in cases to the distress of the musicians.

I doubt that RDNet would try and enforce their copyright in this case though unless they really wanted another own goal. On the question of the other material that they manufacturer in-house then that would be another matter and I wouldn't be so cavalier with that as with this archive.

byofrcs wrote:

econ41 wrote:

byofrcs wrote:...If (and I do) I write open source software and if I found someone else had taken my code and was using it contrary to the licence (GPL/LGPL) by redistributing binaries that used the software with modifications but without providing the source changes then it does not matter if they made money out of that or not: they are violating the copyrights and I fail to see why there should be a commercial gain or consideration for my copyrights to be valid...

Sorry but that is a false analogy. (at both the specific level and the level of processing the material.)

Nope, you're wrong. The license describes what you can or cannot do. Just because something can be taken for nothing doesn't mean you can ignore the license terms.

I am not wrong. I said "false analogy". I never made any comment on the software licensing issue. Your explanation may well be true of your example. It is not true of the RDNet posted material you were addressing by analogy.

econ41 wrote:

byofrcs wrote:...Your argument suggests open source software (or content) based copyrights are void ....

...that is only your extrapolation of the core claim.

RD.net have the copyright and said local archive. It is though up to them to force the issue or issue a clarifying statement that would allow the archive to be made more widespread than just a local archive.

What is the "original work" by RDNet which could attract copyright?

Doesn't the only claim to copyright of individual posts rely on the FUA provision that all material becomes property of RDNet? And has that form of presumption been tested? In what legal jurisdiction? What cases?

(EDIT - I made a mess of the quotes - now fixed )

What is the "original work" of *any* publisher that could attract copyright ?. The act of providing the platform (or channel) is enough.

You need to be aware of the foundation of copyright. The "original work" is what attracts copyright. Provision of the channel does not transfer copyright of itself. The copyright can be transferred by explicit mechanisms which may be part of the "contract to publish" associated with what you call the "channel". One situation which can arise is where a series of episodes are linked by the "channel" operators. The bits of program material which do the linking and the overall framework of the linked episodes would normally accrue copyright to the channel operator distinct from the copyright of each of the separate elements. There may be some parallels in that to the RDNet archive which consists of many individual posts. Each post originally being copyright to the originator, that copyright possibly passing to RDNet under the terms of the FUA but the thread and forum structure is RDNet.

... Any of the contributors could have quite happily retained their copyright and published it through another channel but they chose RDNet as their label.

...hence my quite specific questions which you ignore.

Like musicians wondering why their back catalogue is used like poker chips, the copyrights are easily detached from the original creator and in cases to the distress of the musicians....

Yes....I am aware of the hazards.

I doubt that RDNet would try and enforce their copyright in this case though unless they really wanted another own goal. On the question of the other material that they manufacturer in-house then that would be another matter....

...because it would be their "original work" and copyright would automatically subsist in it...

and I wouldn't be so cavalier with that as with this archive.

...naturally.

econ41 wrote:

byofrcs wrote:......

What is the "original work" of *any* publisher that could attract copyright ?. The act of providing the platform (or channel) is enough.

You need to be aware of the foundation of copyright. The "original work" is what attracts copyright. Provision of the channel does not transfer copyright of itself. The copyright can be transferred by explicit mechanisms which may be part of the "contract to publish" associated with what you call the "channel". One situation which can arise is where a series of episodes are linked by the "channel" operators. The bits of program material which do the linking and the overall framework of the linked episodes would normally accrue copyright to the channel operator distinct from the copyright of each of the separate elements. There may be some parallels in that to the RDNet archive which consists of many individual posts. Each post originally being copyright to the originator, that copyright possibly passing to RDNet under the terms of the FUA but the thread and forum structure is RDNet.

... Any of the contributors could have quite happily retained their copyright and published it through another channel but they chose RDNet as their label.

...hence my quite specific questions which you ignore.
....

You have answered your own question(s) when you said that,

"Each post originally being copyright to the originator, that copyright possibly passing to RDNet under the terms of the FUA but the thread and forum structure is RDNet."

My point is the same point I was trying to make back in Feb 2009 and that was there was an ambiguity in the forum user agreement and equally confusion as to what was the right license to adopt. The confusion is because of trying to answer what question, What is the the purpose of this forum ?. It seems to not just be a community meetup, hug fest and general platform for rants but it has one very clear aim of providing a means to publish actual coherent material that would be of wider use to the community.

I doubt that anyone is that concerned about a one-liner filled mostly of smilies, swearwords and imagelinks but it is this other material that they want to be a lot more certain about the copyright. Given that you think that "copyright possibly passing to RDNet" then is that the kind of unambiguous publishing platform that you would want to use for material to be of wider use according to the wishes of the original work creator ?.

byofrcs wrote:...I doubt that anyone is that concerned about a one-liner filled mostly of smilies, swearwords and imagelinks but it is this other material that they want to be a lot more certain about the copyright. Given that you think that "copyright possibly passing to RDNet" then is that the kind of unambiguous publishing platform that you would want to use for material to be of wider use according to the wishes of the original work creator ?.

I think we are on or approaching the same track.

The lack of precision; ambiguity or optimism pro RDF in the Forum Users Agreement is the key issue as applies to any individual post. Hence my questions as to "what jurisdiction?" and "what cases?" I am simply not currently up to speed on IP/Copyright law and have not done any recent research of either statute or case law.

You approach the issue from a different direction to me but taking your question"...is that the kind of unambiguous publishing platform..." No it isn't and coming at it from my perspective that is why I alluded to the vagueness of the FUA and the need for copyright transfer or not to be much more explicitly defined.

I suggest that, pragmatically for this case, any action by RDF against persons accessing the material is unlikely. The adverse publicity alone would probably be enough to persuade the RDF powers to not proceed.

Eric C

It's not just the facts of copyright which are the issue. It's also interesting that there doesn't appear to be the slightest interest in contacting RDF to resolve the issue of permission. How difficult is it to exchange a few emails?

Disputing the precise application of copyright in a case where you have no intention of compliance would be something of a red herring.

mcgruff wrote:It's not just the facts of copyright which are the issue. It's also interesting that there doesn't appear to be the slightest interest in contacting RDF to resolve the issue of permission. How difficult is it to exchange a few emails?

Disputing the precise application of copyright in a case where you have no intention of compliance would be something of a red herring.

It's a moot question mcgruff.
Copyright only applies if publishing is intended of the copyrighted material.

And if publishing is intended all that is needed is to rephrase the posts and articles a little.
There is no rules against plagiarising oneself.

mcgruff wrote:It's not just the facts of copyright which are the issue. It's also interesting that there doesn't appear to be the slightest interest in contacting RDF to resolve the issue of permission.

Disputing the precise application of copyright in a case where you have no intention of compliance would be something of a red herring.

Everybody here who has sent RD an email raise your hand.

Everybody who got a reply to that email raise your hand.


See, that wasn't hard.

OK that would make it difficult. There must be some way to open a channel of communication though, perhaps through a trusted third party. I think I can arrange that if you want. This could not be used to air grievances or challenge any recent decisions - for better or worse they don't want to rake through that - but it could be used for any other matters of mutual interest.

I don't want to talk to Dawkins. Period.

mcgruff wrote:OK that would make it difficult. There must be some way to open a channel of communication though, perhaps through a trusted third party. I think I can arrange that if you want. This could not be used to air grievances or challenge any recent decisions - for better or worse they don't want to rake through that - but it could be used for any other matters of mutual interest.

Still at it mcgruff??

Please specify:
Purpose of email?
Who should send it?
On behalf of what parties?
Expecting what outcome?
Why the action should be beneficial?
To who?

Also, for your information, that is the strategy which I understand was adopted in 2008 and failed in the area of "social skills/people relationships"

econ41 wrote:Still at it mcgruff??

Good day to you too.

There are, or have been, things you want to say which they don't want to hear. By all accounts all communications are blocked.

Now, if someone trusted by RDF were to say to them "you ought to listen to X from RSO" RDF probably would open the mail and reply. This would have to be someone trusted by both sides. You'd contact Mr Piggy @ inthemiddle.com and he would alert RDF.

A bit daft? Hell yeah. No doubt before too long you'd think of some way to cut out the middleman when you need to speak but right here right now perhaps that might help, if there is a copyright issue and if you want to clear that up amicably.

mcgruff wrote:Don't you need permission to distribute that file?

Almost certainly yes. Which is why it's important for many people to download it as soon as possible, to forestall any possibility of having it all disappear in a copyright dispute.

My position is that what I'm downloading is MY original works, which I hold the copyright to, and which was on loan only, notwithstanding the RDNet UA. Everything else is chaff and will be discarded.

If Dawkins doesn't like that, he's free to sue me.