[HPFGU-Feedback] Back to That Copyright Clause.

[Iggy McSnurd]

> 
> I.e. None of Cindy's work has been ceded to HPfGU formally, which
> means that she still has the rights to all of it.
> 
> Just wondering what y'all are thinking about this.
> 
> -Tom, who wants desperately to apologize for any formatting issues,
> as he's having problems with apostrophes today, and who wants
> everyone to know that since he doesn't have internet access at home,
> he tends to work the old-fashioned way with pen on paper; that he
> has a stack of notes that he's compiling on the matter of Full
> Disclosure and is not in any way dodging the question; and that
> since this was already mostly written, he figured he'd get it out of
> the way first.
> 

Iggy here:

Tom, I hate to do this... I really do, but I'm about to blast three
rather large holes in your arguments here.  (As always, please
understand that this is not personal in any way.  It is my objective
observations and input.)

1:  You yourself have pointed out a recognition that in all of the HB
files and other guidelines, the Admin states up front that they have the
right to revise the terms and rules of the lists and guideline files
themselves at will and without the need to notify the list members.
This means that the argument against the changes in the rules and when
they happen become basically moot.  This is similar to the "at will
employment" issues.  (If you take a job at will, and they fire you,
there's not much you have in the way of recourse unless you can PROVE
that it was in violation of federal or state laws... and even that is
next to impossible unless you can establish a trend of discrimination.)

  With a list where you join and accept that they can change the rules
and guidelines at will, and without notifying the membership, then
you're pretty much in the same boat... whether you read the rules or
not.  (And since you brought up Cindy in this one, as a lawyer, she
should know to read all these things, since they are binding.)

2:  There has been an established precedent from much earlier HBfiles
that the free use of posts is granted for promotion, etc.  Because of
this, adding it back in (even when it was accidentally omitted in an
intervening edition) is completely valid and acceptable.  This is due to
the prior existence of that clause within the rules.  It is widely
accepted that things may get lost in revision, and that if it existed in
a previous edition, it can still be accepted as binding.

3:  A set of rules is like a contract, and the contract you sign when
you JOIN, not the one that exists when you leave, is the one that takes
precedence, since that's the one you accepted.  Now, also, clauses can
be added at will to the rules, as well as removed, per the overruling
clause that says that things can be changed without notice.  If someone
joins the group under a set of rules, and some new rules are added, then
all of them apply.  If a given rule is removed as an acceptable editing
error, but replaced in the next version, than the rule is still
considered to be binding.  (Especially since it existed when the
individual joined.)
  So, to use your example of Cindy, the agreement that was in effect
allowing the admin to use her posts at will, is the one that's binding
since it was in effect when she joined the list.  Any and all of her
posts may be used by the admin, even though she appears to be gone from
the groups.
  Now, if it wasn't in at first, and the Admin announces that it will be
added as a completely new clause in a week, then the people on the list
who do not accept the addition may leave within that week.  If they do
so, then the new clause will not be binding to them, as it was not in
effect at any time during their membership in the list, and was declined
by them by virtue of them leaving the list.

Ultimately, your arguments of it being omitted from a single version of
the rules don't pan out.  In a court of law, the ruling would be in
favor of the Admin due to how the rules have been constructed.  This is
primarily because Cindy came INTO the list with the clause in effect,
and accepted it.  This is in addition to the acceptance of editing
errors in revisions from one edition to another... especially since it
was put back in when the next edition of the rules was released.

Now, even if the court ruled even on a less favorable level for the
Admin of these lists, the only thing they could legitimately do is state
that any post between the June 16 through Dec 5th dates would not be
usable.  (But, like I said, they would be a lot less inclined to decide
that way, since they would look more at the rules in effect when the
individual joined the lists.)


Also, so far as your comment about "none of Cindy's work have been
formally ceded to the HPfGU list Admins..."  Wrong.  It has.  If she
signed up under a set of rules that stated that the Admin has full
rights to use her works.  If it's something that was created FOR the
HPfGU lists, then she never had the rights to them in the first place.

As I've also stated, the point is also moot, because unless she can
prove beyond a doubt that all the material she has sent in here is
completely original (and I've already listed what that would entail) all
the Admin would have to do is paraphrase her statements and it would be
acceptable as "common intellectual property" (except the copyrights
retained by JKR herself) and would be freely usable on the lists after
that.


I've been thinking about the name Attic Lights (as I quoted him in my
last major post), and it led me to thinking about the Shel Silverstein
book "A Light in the Attic."  This all essentially means that there's a
light on upstairs and that someone is really thinking about what's going
on.

A few bits of advice:

Attic Lights seems to be well versed in how to research rules and
policies, as well as myself and yourself course, and you might want to
talk to him as well.  He may be able to show you where you might not be
seeing things, or overlooking bits of information that tend to counter
your case.

I'd probably recommend dropping this particular line of debate, as it is
not only pretty much a losing fight that will only succeed in drawing
out the inevitable, but it has another effect as well.  Since you are
dwelling on situations oriented around Cindy, it makes things appear to
some that you are trying to champion her cause as your own for some
reason, even though she was formally expelled from the lists.  Not only
that, but it appears as though you are carrying a grudge against the
admin, which I would find surprising for a man of your apparent
intellect.  Not that some people don't, but more that I would like to
think that you are a wise enough person to realize that there are two
sides to every argument, and the truth usually lies somewhere in the
middle.  (Keeping this fact in mind is what allows me to remain as
neutral and unbiased as I am.)

I am not saying not to be friends with Cindy or anything (if you still
are off-list).  I am merely trying to state that if you attempt to
defend someone too hard, especially someone who is credited (accurately
or not) with causing as much trouble as she is credited with, it will
more likely than not close people's eyes and ears to what you have to
say.  They will slate you simply as a "surrogate troublemaker" because
of that earned association.  I don't think you want to earn that title,
and I don't really think you should earn it.  But most people tend to
think of it as "guilt by association" which is, sadly enough,
unavoidable if you keep on the path you're on.

(Some may end up saying that it puts you in the same boat regarding
Cindy, as Gwen's accusations of the Admin regarding T-Bay.  That's, of
course, if you protest much more than you are now.  I don't want to see
that happen to anyone, since it's an ugly thing to think about someone.)


I wouldn't bother giving you this advice, BTW, if I didn't think that
you could basically be a likable fellow with a lot of potential.


Iggy McSnurd