[HPFGU-Feedback] Re: ADMIN: Possible Changes to the Main List Settings

[Iggy McSnurd]

> > Tom:
> > I'm not sure that that's the case... I *think* that permission may
> > still be needed, particularly in certain cases - like the banned
> > member, whose work appears all over the place. I plan to bring this
> > up in another post later on, but as I don't have all of the details
> > at present, I'll hold off. Oh, and I'm not a lawyer either, so I
> > can't be sure.
> 
> 
> Erin says:
> 
> I'm sure that permission was given at that time; she and the people
> most frequently quoted in Hypothetic alley at present are the ones
> who actually wrote it!
> 
> Erin
> 

Iggy here:

A few points I'd like to make.

1:  If you write an article *for* an organization, and at their request
(or volunteer to do so), then you are giving them full rights to the
material.  In other words, if someone like Cindy (to pick a random
example of someone I know has left the list) wrote something for
Fantastic Posts, rather than simply posting a letter or writing there,
then she has transferred rights for the material to them.  It's similar
to a commissioned work, paid or not.  This is similar to someone writing
a screenplay that's bought by Warner Brothers.  If you sell the script
outright, then you lose all say in it from there on out.  This also
applies to a screenplay you write for free because they asked you to.

2:  On the other hand, if you simply post something to a list, like most
of our posts, then you are merely lending the rights to the group, and
still retain full ownership.  To give an example - My lengthy post I did
a while back on the nature of prejudice.  People on the list can quote
me all they want, since I have lent the rights to the list and the Admin
of said list.  However, as I retain full ownership over that writing, I
can revoke the lending of those rights at any time, and the quotes based
from it would have to be pulled from any official documents within a
reasonable time frame.  (72 hours is usually the rule of thumb for
on-line publication.  For print material, it must be pulled in the next
edition... with a minimum leeway time if the next edition is in print
process and shipping.)


If the material from that "banned member" is all over the place, then
the question is which of those two categories *each* quote falls under.
Anything under level 2, and they can still request the quoted material
to be pulled, giving a reasonable deadline.  If it's under level 1, then
they're out of luck, since they're not the ones who own the rights
anymore.

The tricky part, though, is that if the quoted material is based on
"common knowledge" or "common intellectual property", then all the admin
would need to do is remove the direct quotes, and would be in full
rights to paraphrase.  If the material is based on things discussed on
the lists, and aren't purely an original theory or idea, then it's
"common intellectual property."

Here's the other fun part: If the quotes are derived from the HP series
of books themselves, then they are considered common property until JRK
herself revokes the rights.... and I don't think she will.


So, in summary, I can almost guarantee that the most that the admin
would need to do to deal with the quoted material from the "banned
member" is to simply paraphrase and remove the actual quote itself.
Unless, of course, that "banned member" can *prove* that their idea was
a completely original one.  (In which case, they would also have to go
through every single post on all the HP based lists, and web sites, and
newsgroups... and prove that they came up with it before anyone else.)

I'd also like to point out that they can only pull the quotes from the
official documents.  If they want any quotes pulled from posts by list
members, then they will have to locate each and every post, and appeal
to each list member that quoted them...

All in all, a lot more work than it's worth at this time... especially
when you take into consideration that, in working with copyright law,
you would have to initiate legal action against the offending
publications or individuals, and also reveal each and every instance in
which you were quoted.  This also would leave that "banned member" open
to countersuit on a number of different counts... not the least of which
would be harassment...  And they would be legally required to give their
real identity, as trying to file a lawsuit under an alias is not only
illegal, but would get you laughed out of a lawyer's office for even
asking them.

It should also be pointed out that ISPs also keep records of what
account links up to them... even when checking something like a Hotmail
account.  So, let's say the "banned member" has logged onto a poll, for
example, under 20 different fake e-mails, then if legal action is filed
against the HPfGU groups, then the admin would be able to have the
courts subpoena all related documentation relating to the 20 e-mail
accounts that were used to mess up a poll... this would be linked to
Hotmail, for example, who would then track down the ISP account used to
access the web site and create those accounts, and then the lawyers go
to that ISP and track down the individual's account information.  Then,
not only can the HPfGU admin countersuit the individual(s), but Yahoo
and Hotmail would be able to sue the person for using their services to
not only misrepresent themselves (especially over state lines, a federal
offense) but also for harassing one of their clients.


So, unless these people care for a lot of work and (if they haven't
conducted themselves honorably and legally with the group admin)
possible legal counter action, then they would be well advised to drop
the issue, as it would be in their best interests.  (Not to mention in
the best interests of their supporters.)

I, for example, as one who has always conducted myself fairly with the
groups, along with many other members out there who have done the same,
could probably work something out to have quotes of ours removed from
official posts if we saw the need to.  On the other hand, if someone
else has not conducted themselves fairly with the list and its admin,
then they're probably outta luck. For one thing, the honorable ones can
request compliance with removal of quotes and have the request filled
out of respect.  If you don't act honorably with the group, then you
won't get the respect that will lead to the fulfillment of your
requests.


That's just a bit of advice from a fellow list member... (Who has also
had discussions at length with professional writers from many different
fields about "intellectual property rights.")


Iggy McSnurd