ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings

[Thomas Wall]

DISCLAIMER: First time posting from my e-mail account
here - I usually use webview - so, er, advance
apologies in case I'm doing something wrong. ;-)

Now...


Talisman wrote:
And, I agree with others who have noted the
inappropriateness of switching terms on posters ex
post facto. If you want to reserve extant posts to a
members only archive, as older posts are now stored
(and which currently requires separate subscription)
that's fine. If I post anything in the future I'll
know it is subject to the new terms.

Tom:
I'm with Talisman (and those others) here. When I
signed up for HPfGU, it was with the understanding I
was exposing myself and my ideas exclusively to a
group of like-minded people in a semi-private
situation; I did not sign up with the idea that I'd be
posting for the whole internet to see, nor am I
certain that I'd be very thrilled about that
possibility. The hbfile didn't - and doesn't - say
anything about that, and those - along with the Yahoo
Guidelines and TOS - are the rules that I agreed to
when I became a member here. Period. End of story.

And really, I'm quite surprised that some may think
that there's no substantive difference between
exposing one's work and thoughts to eleven thousand
people and exposing them to the internet-using public
at large.

IMHO there's not only a difference, but that
difference is *exponential* in nature: 

Thousands vs. Millions.

I'd say that counts as substantial. Nevermind the
basic differences between 'relatively private,' as
these lists are, and, er, being "Google-able," which
in all worlds consists of a very different ball-game.

On a related note, I've been thinking lately that this
could possibly affect the situation over on "Fantastic
Posts and Where to Find Them" as well, because there
is nothing included in the hbfile which necessarily
precludes the releasing of copyright for use by the
FAQ team; presently, to my knowledge, there is no
specific process in place for acquiring this
permission from members, who, like me, are probably
working under the basic rules presented in the hbfile
and the Yahoo Guidelines and TOS.

All the hbfile states is that FP *exists,* not that
everyone's work is subject to inclusion there. I'd
suggest that the Admin/FAQ team look into updating the
hbfile to include a clause of this sort, that is, *if*
the FAQ team is to continue perusing the lists'
content and selecting what they want for use on that
already publically-accessible website.

If I understand the copyright regulations accurately,
then unless permission to use a member's work has been
received - and ostensibly in an explicit (and not
loophole-esque) way - by the Admin/FAQ team, then I'm
afraid that we may already be *currently* in
violation, should someone choose to complain about it.
Nevermind any possible changes that are being
discussed at present.

Again, I'd have to confess surprise here that there
are people who think that this even *might* be okay,
as IMHO all of my practical experience with the
internet suggests that reasonable people know that you
generally need permission to use another person's
work. 

For example: this summer, a member who was presenting
a paper at Nimbus contacted me and asked for
permission to use a part of one of my posts in her
paper. Naturally, I granted it, and was glad to do so,
but I believe that the member wrote to me based on the
idea that even citing me properly isn't enough: this
list is not in *any way* in the public domain -
although just about anyone may join - and therefore
even proper citations don't necessarily mean that
there isn't copyright-violation involved in the
arbitrary use of another's work. She wanted to use my
stuff, so she asked. That's what you do.

I note that Steve also seems to be following this
procedure over at the Lexicon, which does occasionally
employ material gleaned from HPfGU: every citation
there is used with explicit permission from the author
or source (as he also has permission from Scholastic
to use Mary GrandPre's art on the Lexicon). I doubt
that Steve feels entitled to take *any* work and use
it - even with proper citations - without first
consulting the author. Such an action would,
naturally, jeopardize the Lexicon. And let's forget
the rules for a second: for me, this *still* basically
boils down to simple academic courtesy.


Talisman wrote:
Also, posters do retain all rights to their work,
including copyright.

Tom:
Agreed, obviously. ;-) 

Additionally, in light of recent - and past - "banning
of members" efforts by the Admin team (however few
these are in number), I think that this is an issue
that will eventually need to be revisited, as banned
members technically no longer retain the rights to
their work once they are banned. Banned members,
subsequently, also have been denied the rights of
*control* over that work; at present, any member may
delete his or her own posts to the lists at any time;
a banned member has been denied that right. And
honestly, I'm not sure that that's entirely in sync
with what Yahoo had in mind when it wrote its
Guidelines and TOS.

Since banned members have never officially or formally
relinquished the copyrights - and I sincerely doubt
that they'd do so - there could, again, *already* be a
problem with copyright violations if HPfGU continues
to use their work in any official capacity. So, for
all intents and purposes, the present discussion is
basically rendered irrelevant in light of the already
pre-existing situation.


Talisman:
If work product posted to a private group were to be
made public, without the author's agreement, and
copyright infringement followed, there might be
further legal ramifications for the Admin.

Tom:
Again, agreed entirely. 

>From my perspective, this discussion, while
interesting, essentially amounts to a big fat
non-starter. This is not something that can be decided
by the Admin team, as they do not retain the
copyrights to others' work. Whether or not they're the
stewards for the list is irrelevent; this is not a
decision that they can make, again, unless the rules
are formally changed and go into effect for all posts
*after* a certain date. IMHO, there is basically
nothing that can be done about all the posts that have
been written in the past. Furthermore, the way I see
it, it's not even something that could even be decided
by a majority-vote of all members - assuming such a
mobilization would even be possible, to completely
ignore the concept of "likely" - since "all members"
do not retain the copyrights to others' work, either.

So, unless it looks like - and I'm considerably
confident that it does not - absolutely everyone who
has ever posted here will concede this issue and grant
the list the right to post their work publically, then
a change of this sort cannot be made with reference to
the archives and all past posts.

As Talisman points out, however, the Admin team
*would* - theoretically - possess the right to distill
out all of the old posts in some way and start with
some new rules at any point they chose, provided the
changes in the rules, and the date on which the
changes go into effect, were announced and clearly
understood by the general list membership. I
understand that the Admin team reserves the right to
alter the hbfile without informing the general list
membership, but IMHO this is not one of those cases.
People need to know under what conditions they'll be
posting.

-Tom, who commiserates with Joywitch on the subject of
"bad reputations," and who also admits that whether or
not he's playing Devil's Advocate for the time being,
he would probably allow his work to be made publically
available anyways.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus