FACT-MAN-2 wrote:I'd like to report a successful download of the backup and a successful extraction of its files using 7zip, as was suggested here.

Now I can go through all 7,022 of my posts and save the ones I wish to keep, plus save many valuable posts by others to which I can refer in doing my own work.

So hats off to those who made this possible and their terrific and courageous efforts, especially NineBerry. I thank them one and all and remain forever in their debt.

And as someone commented, the legal horse on this thing is long gone down the road and hard to find, if anyone ever decided to make that effort, which I can't believe Dawkins would order up, and he's the only one who could.

I say, fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.

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

mcgruff wrote:Isn't that the mistake made by the religious, ie mixing up emotion and logic? They desperately want God to be real and so they fool themselves into believing. The confidence trick of "faith". You most certainly do need permission to distribute copyrighted material. If that's been given, fine, but for your own sake if nothing else don't just blindly assume you have rights which might not exist in a court of law.

I am a little bit disturbed by the suggestion that this file would have been distributed regardless of permission.

We will leave the current forum up for 30 days, giving regular users an opportunity to locally archive any content they value.

crank wrote:

mcgruff wrote:Isn't that the mistake made by the religious, ie mixing up emotion and logic? They desperately want God to be real and so they fool themselves into believing. The confidence trick of "faith". You most certainly do need permission to distribute copyrighted material. If that's been given, fine, but for your own sake if nothing else don't just blindly assume you have rights which might not exist in a court of law.

I am a little bit disturbed by the suggestion that this file would have been distributed regardless of permission.

It's been mentioned in this post and elsewhere, we were given carte blanch with the archive, from the kissoff post:

We will leave the current forum up for 30 days, giving regular users an opportunity to locally archive any content they value.

"any content they value", since RDF assumed ownership in the agreement to join and post, they give it away here. Posters don't have a leg to stand on as they posted to a publicly viewable form and could expect their input to be on display indefinitely.

byofrcs wrote:

crank wrote:

mcgruff wrote:Isn't that the mistake made by the religious, ie mixing up emotion and logic? They desperately want God to be real and so they fool themselves into believing. The confidence trick of "faith". You most certainly do need permission to distribute copyrighted material. If that's been given, fine, but for your own sake if nothing else don't just blindly assume you have rights which might not exist in a court of law.

I am a little bit disturbed by the suggestion that this file would have been distributed regardless of permission.

It's been mentioned in this post and elsewhere, we were given carte blanch with the archive, from the kissoff post:

We will leave the current forum up for 30 days, giving regular users an opportunity to locally archive any content they value.

"any content they value", since RDF assumed ownership in the agreement to join and post, they give it away here. Posters don't have a leg to stand on as they posted to a publicly viewable form and could expect their input to be on display indefinitely.

Except that there is a lot of difference between "locally archive" (which the copyright holder has allowed) and posting it to another web site (which is nothing like a local archive) for all and sundry to download.

I may be able to download an ebook or download software from a publicly visible web site (and it may be quite free in cost but I have to stare at blank spaces where ABP stops banner ads) and I may be permitted to create a local archive (or backup).

I seriously doubt that means I can then shove that same copyrighted material onto a publicly available web site.

mcgruff wrote:Maybe it would be a good idea to ask them if they have any objections.

mcgruff wrote:The point is you appear to be doing it without permission. Maybe there won't be a problem, maybe there will but you won't actually know unless you ask.

Would it be fair to say that you haven't asked because you don't really care either way and have already decided what you're going to do?

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.

mcgruff wrote:The RDF FUA:

Use of Materials
without the prior consent of the owner.

If you distribute material from RDF without permission you are in breach of copyright.

If one has a disagreement one ought to try to keep it as civilised as possible. This could potentially cause more trouble and that would surely be a stupid thing to do when it would be so easy to get in touch with RDF to ask permission.

Personally yes of course I'd like the old forum to remain visible somewhere but emphatically not if it means stealing it.

dylan wrote:Which is why I think it's important to have this whole forum creative commons licensed. It would allow everything we do remain free and shareable as long as credit is givin.

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

crank wrote:I hope you don't think I am trying to argue angrily with you, I am merely trying to make a case that we shouldn't have to worry.