ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings

[Thomas Wall]

Just to note here, I am following all of the rules
laid out in the -Feeback rules file and on the 
-Feedback homepage. 

I am not insulting, attacking, or criticizing
individuals in this post. No ad hominems to be found
here. But I will candidly discuss list policy, which,
as far as I understand, is not only allowed on 
-Feedback, but is actually the reason why this list
was created in the first place. 

If I do not understand the -Feedback guidelines
accurately, please advise.


Kelley, quoting the *new* hbfile, wrote:
Further, in so posting, you also grant the HPFGU LIst
Administrators the license to use, distribute,
reproduce, modify, adapt and publicly display such
post(s) for the purposes of providing and promoting
the various HP4GU groups and sites."

Tom replies:
Just so we're all on the same page, here: I downloaded
a copy of the hbfile on 03-December-2003... about six
weeks ago. According to *that* version of the
document, the file had last been updated on
20-November-2003.

The clause that Kelley is citing is *not* in the copy
of the hbfile that I have from this past December,
which means that this clause was not in existence when
I, and most of my peers here signed up for HPfGU. (For
the record, I signed up last January, under the terms
of the old hbfile.) 

Just so we all know what this signifies, pasted below
is the section of the hbfile, dated 03-December-2003,
that I have stored in my account. In my copy, it
consists of one paragraph.

The clause that Kelley cited in her reply to me is
*not* in this copy of the hbfile.


--start quote--

1.4 Legal Issues 

By posting on any of the HPFGU lists, you agree to
adhere to the Yahoo Terms of Use located at
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/. Links to electronic
texts (etexts) of any Harry Potter book and any file
containing the audio versions of the books or the
movie(s) may violate the Yahoo TOU, so please do not
post any or we'll have to delete the post. It's also a
copyright violation to reproduce substantial portions
of any article or book, but you can post links to
them.

--end quote--


The new clause is a very recent addition that was put
into effect (on 05-December-2003, according to the new
hbfile) without notifying us or consulting the list
membership. Therefore I do not believe that my terms
of membership can be affected this substantially,
involving my own copyright, without my permission, or
at the very least, without my notification.

So, I guess the most logical questions are, "Why was
that quote added to the hbfile on 05-December-2003,"
and "How did the List Admin come to decide that 'in
its discretion' it did not have to notify the list
membership that a major change in copyright rules had
just been put into effect?" 

Succinctly: "Why weren't we told about it?"

IMHO, that single clause is a *highly* significant
change, and I find it hard to believe that it would be
added surreptitiously without notifying the general
list membership in one way or another. Mistakes
happen, of course, but I'm not certain that the
addition of a calculated clause such as this can
accurately be classified as a "mistake." 

As you can see from this discussion, people are fairly
concerned about their copyrights and their availablity
to the general internet-going public, hence the
discussion we're having now. IMHO, a change of that
sort constitutes a massive alteration of the rules
that we agreed to when we signed up. I may be wrong,
by I never saw any Admin messages to that effect.

I noted yesterday that the HPfGU Admin team reserves
the right to make alterations to the hbfile without
notifying the list membership. It says so in the
hbfile. "We will make changes to anything written here
from time to time as needed, and will notify list
members of those changes at our discretion." In
actuality, this clause *itself* is also a relatively
new change, as it is not included in a copy of the
hbfile that I have stored that is dated
29-August-2003.

However, quibbling over that change aside, I also
suggested yesterday that *this* - the discussion over
copyright - was not one of those acceptible situations
in which changes could be made without permission, or
at least, again, notification. In many cases, I
understand that the Admin team may make small
adjustments that do not affect the general list
membership too much. I'm not interested in a semantic
debate involving which pronoun is more appropriate to
use, and correcting typographical errors.

However - big however here - again, access to and
copyright of my work is not a matter that the Admin
team has sole right to determine, and it is
inappropriate, IMHO, to make a change of this nature
without telling everyone about it. I would earnestly
suggest that in the future, changes of this magnitide
be relayed to the general community in some form or
another.

Furthermore, since this was not a rule that I signed
up under, I also believe that I am not subject to the
change, as I was not consulted about it. In effect, I
believe that I - and everyone else who joined prior to
12-05-2003 - am grandfathered out of this clause 
because this is a substantial change that I was not
consulted on. Nor, for that matter, was this right
ever expressly granted by me or by the other members
of this list. So again, we return to the basic
discussion point: in order to use my work, you must
have my permission.

If I signed up today, then as Talisman pointed out, I
would understand that this applied to me. However,
since I did not, I do not believe that it does apply
to me, nor do I believe that it is fair-play to try to
make me acquiesce to a rule that was put into effect
without my knowledge.

If you don't mind the question, again, "why weren't we
notified about that change, since it concerns such a
major issue as copyright infringement?" And in a more
academic sense, since the change was made without
either the approval or notification of the general
list membership, what are we going to do about that
now?


On the topic of "Fantastic Posts and Where to Find
Them," Erinelli wrote:
But Fantastic Posts doesn't have the whole of each
post up on the website. What they do is provide a link
to it. And, I may be wrong, but I think that in order
to actually view the post, you'd have to be
a member of HPfGU.

Tom:
Yes, I agree that for most of the site, you're
absolutely correct and this is the case. 

However, Hypothetic Alley, at least, does have direct
quotes from posts that were placed on the list. There
are quite a few quotes from members' material,
actually.

And at least one of the FP essays directly cites
members' real names, Yahoo ID's, and/or pseudonyms,
and makes those names - as well as the canon positions
ascribed to them - accessible to the public. Are we
sure that those people want everyone who accesses that
site to know what their canon positions are; for
instance, do you think that an individual would like
the internet-going public to know that he or she
believes that Snape could be described as the "Hebrew
Satan?"

Is all of FP in violation. No way. 
Are there possible problems? Absolutely.

-Tom

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/