RDF Archive - Full Download Inside

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: RDF Archive - Full Download Inside

#61  Postby Seth » Mar 10, 2010 5:41 pm

econ41 wrote:
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


The law is very clear. Full transfer of copyrights can only be done explicitly and in writing and with the consent of the author. What RDNet had, and ONLY had, was a license of use. It still has that license, but not the copyrights, which are retained by the authors.

RDNet's license is not exclusive either, so authors are free to use their material wherever they please.

Any ambiguity created by the "materials submitted" claim is overridden by the other two sections, which specifically refer to "licensors" (the authors of posts) and the statement "you are representing that you are the owner of the material."

Absent an express transfer of copyrights, it is my position that this language creates only a license for use by RDNet.

And, for the record, I did NOT transfer copyrights to any of my materials. I believe I even said so in a tech thread entry.

However, distribution of the database itself most likely violates the FUA and copyright law because it's being "distributed" without RDNet's consent. Now, according to the FUA, an INDIVIDUAL may go to to the forum and is "free to display and print for your personal, non-commercial use" anything found there. But to distribute the database is probably a violation.

Here's the FUA:

Proprietary Rights
The Internet allows people throughout the world to share valuable information, ideas and creative works. To ensure continued open access to such materials, we all need to protect the rights of those who share their creations or information with us.

Richarddawkins.net expects that you will not use the service to violate anyone's copyright, trademark or other intellectual property rights. By submitting material to richarddawkins.net, you are representing that you are the owner of the material; are making your submission with the express consent of the owner; or have legal authorisation and/or rights to submit any non-owned property.

In the interests of transparency, the maintenance of a high standard of debate and compliance with copyright law, all quoted texts must be presented as such and attributed to a source to avoid confusion over authorship. Therefore, you must provide links to online sources or list author, title, and edition copyright when quoting from printed literature. The onus is on you to ensure that you have copyright permission to copy text from articles, in situations where fair use does not apply.

Use of Materials
Although we make richarddawkins.net freely accessible, we don't intend to give up our rights, or anyone else's rights, to the materials appearing on richarddawkins.net . The materials available through richarddawkins.net are the property of richarddawkins.net or its licensors, and are protected by copyright, trademark and other intellectual property laws. You are free to display and print for your personal, non-commercial use information you receive through richarddawkins.net but you may not otherwise reproduce any of the materials without the prior consent of the owner. You may not distribute copies of materials found on richarddawkins.net in any form (posting on other websites, by email or other electronic means), without prior permission from the owner. However, links to richarddawkins.net are always appreciated and welcome.

Material Submitted
All materials, photos or videos you submit to any of our forums and other public posting areas become the property of richarddawkins.net and may be reproduced, modified and distributed by richarddawkins.net without restriction, in any medium, and for any purpose. Posting of any material on richarddawkins.net gives expressed waiver and release of any/all rights, legal, moral, or otherwise, to said material(s). (Embedded or linked images/videos hosted elsewhere do not count as submitted material.) You may edit posted material for up to 48 hours after it is initially posted, but you may not edit posts to such an extent that it substantially alters posts to which others have responded.
Image Visit The Broadside © 2011 Altnews
User avatar
Seth
Banned Troll
 
Posts: 3256

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: RDF Archive - Full Download Inside

#62  Postby mcgruff » Mar 10, 2010 6:01 pm

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


Probably you would get away with it but if you refuse to respect reasonable standards in your treatment of RDF, you forfeit the right to complain about the way you've been treated by RDF.
User avatar
mcgruff
 
Posts: 3614
Male

Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: RDF Archive - Full Download Inside

#63  Postby Globe » Mar 10, 2010 6:24 pm

Seth wrote:
Material Submitted
All materials, photos or videos you submit to any of our forums and other public posting areas become the property of richarddawkins.net and may be reproduced, modified and distributed by richarddawkins.net without restriction, in any medium, and for any purpose. Posting of any material on richarddawkins.net gives expressed waiver and release of any/all rights, legal, moral, or otherwise, to said material(s). (Embedded or linked images/videos hosted elsewhere do not count as submitted material.) You may edit posted material for up to 48 hours after it is initially posted, but you may not edit posts to such an extent that it substantially alters posts to which others have responded.

Well aint it a good thing I never SUBMITTED anything, but merely LINKED to it. Ergo is all my stuff still my stuff. :plot:
"Justice will be served!
As soon as I can find you a piece that hasn't gone rotten." - Globe

I don't accept sexism, no matter what gender is being targeted with an -ism.
User avatar
Globe
 
Posts: 6659
Age: 53
Female

Country: Spain NOT Denmark
Spain (es)
Print view this post

Re: RDF Archive - Full Download Inside

#64  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Mar 11, 2010 11:20 pm

Seth wrote:
However, distribution of the database itself most likely violates the FUA and copyright law because it's being "distributed" without RDNet's consent. Now, according to the FUA, an INDIVIDUAL may go to to the forum and is "free to display and print for your personal, non-commercial use" anything found there. But to distribute the database is probably a violation.

I'd think if it cannot be shown that distribution of the database was for commercial gain, then RDNet would have no case in any practical sense. RDNet's license is a mechanism that's intended to prevent commercial exploitation of any licensed material and is certainly not intended to prevent sharing in a not-for-profit manner or context.

In the singular, RDNet did not constrain its members from downloading their own (posted) material, so the question becomes how does this translate to the collective? Given the principal of "no harm, no foul" it seems to me RDNet would have a hard time making a case for damages againts anyone who downloaded the entire site's data repository for the express purpose of sharing it with others on a no-cost basis or in a no-cost model.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: RDF Archive - Full Download Inside

#65  Postby econ41 » Mar 12, 2010 7:39 am

Plus the only limited aspect where RDNet could try to claim "original work" is in the joining of the individual posts into threads and sub forums.

I think I have said that several times but say it here for closure.
User avatar
econ41
 
Posts: 1283
Age: 79
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: RDF Archive - Full Download Inside

#66  Postby epepke » Mar 12, 2010 6:01 pm

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:In the singular, RDNet did not constrain its members from downloading their own (posted) material, so the question becomes how does this translate to the collective? Given the principal of "no harm, no foul" it seems to me RDNet would have a hard time making a case for damages againts anyone who downloaded the entire site's data repository for the express purpose of sharing it with others on a no-cost basis or in a no-cost model.


Actually, the announcement that the forum would be up gave permission for any "regular" posters to download any material they valued for "local" archive. So people don't only have permission to download their stuff; they have permission to download anything they find of value.

The only possible quibbling would be over "local." I think it clearly means that it shouldn't be used to populate a new website, but there is a gray area about whether downloading it and then sharing it with others, not for profit, is permitted. I think there's a good argument that having people share it is functionally equivalent to everyone's downloading it, except that it doesn't use RDF bandwidth and therefore saves the RDF money. Since copyright law is shot through with notions of compensation, I think this would be a cogent and compelling argument.
User avatar
epepke
 
Posts: 4080

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: RDF Archive - Full Download Inside

#67  Postby byofrcs » Mar 13, 2010 8:52 am

epepke wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:In the singular, RDNet did not constrain its members from downloading their own (posted) material, so the question becomes how does this translate to the collective? Given the principal of "no harm, no foul" it seems to me RDNet would have a hard time making a case for damages againts anyone who downloaded the entire site's data repository for the express purpose of sharing it with others on a no-cost basis or in a no-cost model.


Actually, the announcement that the forum would be up gave permission for any "regular" posters to download any material they valued for "local" archive. So people don't only have permission to download their stuff; they have permission to download anything they find of value.

The only possible quibbling would be over "local." I think it clearly means that it shouldn't be used to populate a new website, but there is a gray area about whether downloading it and then sharing it with others, not for profit, is permitted. I think there's a good argument that having people share it is functionally equivalent to everyone's downloading it, except that it doesn't use RDF bandwidth and therefore saves the RDF money. Since copyright law is shot through with notions of compensation, I think this would be a cogent and compelling argument.


Compensation need not be monetary but also an obligation to do something. Open Source licenses rest on copyrights and you download that software for free (monetary) but it comes at a cost in your downstream obligations.

I didn't really post because of this unbelievably unsubtle ambiguity in the FUA which (rightly or wrongly) led me to believe something was rotten in the state of Denmark back in feb '09. If I did though post then I would be concerned that the forum had been cloned without my permission. If I publish something on a channel or platform (e.g. Wikipedia) then I expect that the licensing terms are followed by those that copy it. With Wikipedia it is acknowledging the source as Wikipedia.

With rd.net it seems that everyone thinks we still retain the copyright. If I retain copyright then I can withdraw that at any time. I may have given RD.net permission but I certainly didn't give "you" (i.e. someone else). The clone is simply living on borrowed time though I'm playing devils advocate here.
In America the battle is between common cents distorted by profits and common sense distorted by prophets.
User avatar
byofrcs
RS Donator
 
Name: Lincoln Phipps
Posts: 7906
Age: 57
Male

Country: Tax, sleep, identity ?
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: RDF Archive - Full Download Inside

#68  Postby crank » Mar 13, 2010 12:33 pm

epepke wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:In the singular, RDNet did not constrain its members from downloading their own (posted) material, so the question becomes how does this translate to the collective? Given the principal of "no harm, no foul" it seems to me RDNet would have a hard time making a case for damages againts anyone who downloaded the entire site's data repository for the express purpose of sharing it with others on a no-cost basis or in a no-cost model.


Actually, the announcement that the forum would be up gave permission for any "regular" posters to download any material they valued for "local" archive. So people don't only have permission to download their stuff; they have permission to download anything they find of value.

The only possible quibbling would be over "local." I think it clearly means that it shouldn't be used to populate a new website, but there is a gray area about whether downloading it and then sharing it with others, not for profit, is permitted. I think there's a good argument that having people share it is functionally equivalent to everyone's downloading it, except that it doesn't use RDF bandwidth and therefore saves the RDF money. Since copyright law is shot through with notions of compensation, I think this would be a cogent and compelling argument.

I can be good at quibbling. 'archive' can mean preserve for the benefit of all in the future, as in presidential archives, film archives, etc. As the original intent of ALL posters and the original intent of the forum itself was for the content to be accessible to anyone who cared to visit the site, the clone is an archive in this sense.
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10413
Age: 5
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: RDF Archive - Full Download Inside

#69  Postby NineBerry » Jun 09, 2020 6:38 pm

Dropbox has changed something so that the link in the OP doesn't work anymore.

This link works now: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjz5dcm76djaz ... F.rar?dl=0
User avatar
NineBerry
RS Donator
 
Posts: 6133
Age: 42
Male

Country: nSk
Print view this post

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest