New Boards.ie Terms of Use and Privacy Policy - your feedback welcome

Darragh

Kanye wrote: »

Rofl.


Rrroooffflll.


Terms of use: "We own you and everything you do."

Admins: "No no, it just says that. C'mon, guys, we'd never actually use that against you. You're our friends."

This is a legally-binding agreement. There's no two ways about that. Thank the lawd for contra proferentum.

Nice contribution. One sure way to create a hullaballoo.

Darragh

masteroftherealm wrote: »

I dont want boards to have a commercial license to my work, as a media professional licenses are my paychecks, and misuse of my work by boards could result in major legal complications for any professionals working with licensees.
I am not worried about losing my copyright, that's never been the issue, its granting boards a free usage license to reproduce that's the issue.
I would not grant anyone a free and unsigned license to reproduce my work at their leisure, that's the equivalent of shooting myself in the head professionally.

I seriously urge you to talk the photographs/created media area of these T&C's over with a Media Rights lawyer, which you have not to date as far as I can see.

We will do this in the new year.

Amalgam

Darragh wrote: »

Nice contribution. One sure way to create a hullaballoo.

The member was challenged on the quoted post and followed up with a somewhat sensible point.

Darragh

Yes, I know this.

Kanye

Darragh wrote: »

Nice contribution. One sure way to create a hullaballoo.

I don't think my point is invalid, even if I used hyperbole to get it across.

It's clear that the TOU changes people's rights in relation to what they post on the site and it's also clear that boards.ie are seeking to get the best of both worlds by limiting their liability for same.

There's nothing wrong with that but you shouldn't be coming on here fudging the issue by saying that the TOU has a meaning that it clearly does not. If you hadn't intended the legal implications of the new TOU, then it needs to be re-drafted.

Incidentally, just so everyone's clear, Darragh said I was creating a "hullaballoo" because "hullaballoo" is a previous account of mine that I do not use since I stepped down as an administrator.

Darragh

IThanks for the disclosure. A brilliant Admin you were too.

I don't think your point is invalid at all - I think there needs to be redrafting, clarification and a certain amount of education on both sides so we can get to a mutually satisfactory and beneficial situation.

This has been the first draft of the TOU that before now didn't exist. It's been a big job that needed a lot of input and I take full responsibility for the confusion and omissions that have given rise to this thread. Anyone involved in the creation of something like this will tell you - it's complicated at the very least, especially for a site like Boards.ie.

I am definite though that there has never been an intention to profit from anyone else's work or submissions to the site in any way other than what has always been boards.ie practise.

It's Christmas Eve. Terrible time to have put these up and be unable to provide a better answer than "Thank you, we're listening to your feedback and we will address it in the New Year. If there's anything you disagree with, tell us what it is and what you'd like to see it say and we'll address that for you." But that's all I have for now.

I will be back to address whatever issues we can.

TouchingVirus

Darragh, given the current time of year might I then suggest that you remove the T&C's for boards in favour of the old generic onces or at the very least change them so that they are not binding at the current time.

It's clear that work needs to be done, both to educate users and to clarify the legal implications and it doesn't seem fair to force people to accept these changes while this work is ongoing.

Of course we could all just not post on boards until this matter is solved, but the users shouldn't have to make way for the new incomplete T&C's IMO, Boards.ie should have to wait until the T&C's are properly finalised and explained

Wibbs

masteroftherealm wrote: »

I am not worried about losing my copyright, that's never been the issue, its granting boards a free usage license to reproduce that's the issue.

I would not grant anyone a free and unsigned license to reproduce my work at their leisure, that's the equivalent of shooting myself in the head professionally.

No one in any industry where this is important(inc the software etc industry) would do so. It might get Boards into trouble as much as anyone too. Forget the obvious, lets say look posters in the tech sub section, someone developing an application, maybe an iPhone app or somesuch and mentions it on there in some detail(daft I grant you). The section of licencing may cause issues all over the place. Clearly Boards(nor anyone else) would not have any right to reproduce that idea or see it as a submission to Boards. It could be a can of worms for everyone. Now the person posting would be unwise, but all it does take is some mad test case and its headaches all around.

Hell even posts and their content. If a photo or a short story wouldnt be used by Boards to promote or otherwise, then its not a long step to content itself. Yes we all "own" our posts and that's so true and are or should be responsible for them. Of course Boards being the publisher is somewhat responsible for them too and as any crap will flow at Boards first(as it has in the past and doubtless will in the future). So I do get that this is a bloody minefield and new ground to plough. Most so called new stuff isnt really IMHO, but this is. The test case that arose out of the last issue with Boards and a concert promoter was a helluva victory for common sense and some sense of "freedom" for the web in Ireland. Major kudos all around. Hard enough earned too.

I dont see any mad conspiracy in this. I actually do trust where those in charge want to take this site. My worry would be that down the line that may change. The usual reposte of well just leave, doesnt cut it. Many woulnt, mostly cos they wouldnt even notice. How many have read the new T&C as it is? Bugger all I suspect. My worry is the one or two that do in a years time and kick off another test case. This document has to be bloody watertight or near enough to head that off or reduce it. For everyones sake. Not least for the sake of this place and the people in it growing and actually having a mainstream voice, in whatever form it ends up finding itself in.

Wibbs

Darragh wrote: »

It's Christmas Eve.

It is, so feck off home, have a few ales, put the feet up and you and yours have a great Christmas day to follow. You're here way to much. You'd swear they were paying you.

Darragh

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Darragh, given the current time of year might I then suggest that you remove the T&C's for boards in favour of the old generic onces or at the very least change them so that they are not binding at the current time.

The only problems with that are (a) there were no previous Terms and (b) I can't make that decision solely. It's a case of me just having to make the best of what's the situation now.

clear that work needs to be done, both to educate users and to clarify the legal implications and it doesn't seem fair to force people to accept these changes while this work is ongoing.

Point taken and I'll add that it's important we do so. However there is now a starting point and a discussion happening that we couldn't have done before now. All I can do is apologise to those who feel it's unfair and promise we'll be working to resolve this.

Of course we could all just not post on boards until this matter is solved, but the users shouldn't have to make way for the new incomplete T&C's IMO, Boards.ie should have to wait until the T&C's are properly finalised and explained

Again, point taken and your input is appreciated. I'll bring it to the attention of those who make the decisions and let them take it from there.

Darragh

Wibbs wrote: »

It is, so feck off home, have a few ales, put the feet up and you and yours have a great Christmas day to follow. You're here way to much. You'd swear they were paying you.

Aye, I'm on the culchie choo choo now. See you when I see you :-)

Herbal Deity

sceptre wrote: »

I've got limited time as it's Christmas Eve but the data protection commissioner has an excellent site which contains some really good information. Rather than me rooting out and quoting from sections of the 1988 and 2003 acts (Christmas eve etc), if you have a good look there you'll see you're incorrect on having the right to request removal of posts. But if there are good reasons to remove specific pieces of information we can always see what we can do to help as we're not evil. Especially if someone else posts personal information in their posts about another user. As always, we advise being careful and choosy about the information you post on the web, including boards.ie. But an automatic right in the way you've described doesn't actually exist - you choose what you want to post about yourself.

Have a look at the site I've linked to - it's actually very informative and is a good (though obviously not perfect) substitute for reading and understanding the actual legislation. If you've specific questions after having a look there, any of us (including me) will be happy to answer them.

I'm no lawyer, but I have attended a seminar on an introduction to the DP legislation and have read that site before, and it just struck me that posts on Boards would be a data protection minefield.

For example, 5 or 6 in the following link might apply IMO:
http://www.dataprotection.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/rights/RightsPlainEnglish.htm&CatID=16&m=r

I should probably say that this is more out of interest than anything else. I don't think adequate Data Protection legislation exists to cover internet fora.

Say someone posts information about their political views or sexual orientation, which would be classed as sensitive personal information, alongside enough information to identify themselves. Then if they decide later that they would rather that this information not be available publicly, do they have any comeback, or can boards legally retain this information and continue to display it publicly?

Also, perhaps this is a bit silly, but say a Fine Gael supporter posts "I support Fianna Fáil" in a thread. Do they have the right to contact boards and have this factually incorrect information altered?

Anyway, have a good Christmas, these aren't pressing concerns, I'm just interested

Rev. BlueJeans

Break out the refreshments chaps, plenty of time for all this in the New Year

Jazzy

still a fat load of sh1t tbh. it reeks of over importance and self aggrandising. we HAVE to have these? why werent they in years ago? pretty standard thing to have in if its that important. stinks of bs

DeVore

Because Regi and I hobbled together the old ones from the WoW terms and conditions mashed into vB default ones. The rest of your, typical, diatribe I'll only respond to with... Merry Christmas.

We need the authority to reproduce your posts and contributions because otherwise we can be attacked for "publishing" without consent.

DeV.

CFlower

Privacy Policy -

This would be a big deal for a poster - it could mean loss of employment or other troubles.

For example, on a very few occasions, we have reported to organisations that it appeared that one of their employees or other users of their computer equipment was repeatedly making nuisance posts on Boards.ie and asked them to take steps to stop it

Why not just ban ?

I notice that Politics.ie has just published a new Privacy Statement that overlaps a lot with Boards'.

Is this just a coincidence ?

CFlower

I'm referring back to my post 168.

Boards.ie is reserving the right to go to members employers or educational institutes etc. to complain if they consider nuisance posts are being made.

Is this something done frequently?

What would constitute "nuisance" ? Would it include posting unpalatable political views?

How does this tally with the user's personal details being private, and the political views being considered "sensitive personal information", by the Data Commission?

This other forum on 21st September seems to have come up with a Privacy Statement almost word for word the same - the sincerest for of flattery?

http://www.politics.ie/privacy.pie

Hope you had a good Christmas, btw.

kulamario

is ok thanks

Nevyn

CFlower wrote: »

I'm referring back to my post 168.

Boards.ie is reserving the right to go to members employers or educational institutes etc. to complain if they consider nuisance posts are being made.

Is this something done frequently?

When needed.

CFlower wrote: »

What would constitute "nuisance" ?

Constant re regging after a site ban to continue disruptive behaviour which breaks the site rules.

CFlower wrote: »

Would it include posting unpalatable political views?

Define unpalatable political views.

CFlower

Thaedydal wrote: »

When needed.

Constant re regging after a site ban to continue disruptive behaviour which breaks the site rules.

Define unpalatable political views.

Constant re-regging and disruption would be a pain in the neck all right. However, if it was done from the posters own equipment, you would not have recourse to complaining to an employer or educational institute (I guess that is who the clause has in mind?).

The problem of definition is in the hands of the Site Adminstration and Moderation, not the user. They are the ones who would have to decide whether or not they considered it a particular poster's activitie are a "nuisance".

I'm not talking about illegal posting of race hatred or defamation. I'm talking about political views disliked by the Site Owner.

DeVore

We've been reporting people to their workplace/boss/nanny since day 1. If you attack my site, I will attack your life. There is no change here except we are covered in law now too.


This is still a benevolent dictatorship you know.

DeV.

Amalgam

DeVore wrote: »

We've been reporting people to their workplace/boss/nanny since day 1. If you attack my site, I will attack your life. There is no change here except we are covered in law now too.


This is still a benevolent dictatorship you know.

DeV.

Can you define what an 'attack' is? Is it just re-regging to get around a ban. Employers fire at the drop of a hat you know..

CFlower

DeVore wrote: »

We've been reporting people to their workplace/boss/nanny since day 1. If you attack my site, I will attack your life. There is no change here except we are covered in law now too.


This is still a benevolent dictatorship you know.

DeV.

I have no sympathy with people who post extensively in employer's time. I think the fact that posters may be reported to their employers should be flagged loud and clear. I also think it would be reasonable to warn someone before taking that step, it should be viewed as a "last ditch" option and that the nuisance involved should "high level". As a new poster here, I haven't a clue yet what is considered to constitute a nuisance, bar the obvious abuse.

For an employer to receive a complaint from a forum might have an impact greater than an employer becoming aware in the office that their employee was posting. I would think that Boards would want to be very sure that the postings were "nuisance" postings in a readily recognisable sense. In today's climate, someone who lost a job might think they had nothing much to lose by taking the forum on.

The issue of whether you are covered in law is moot. Just because a disclaimer or statement is made does not absolve you from the terms of data protection legislation. People have certain rights to privacy.

Nevyn

CFlower wrote: »

Constant re-regging and disruption would be a pain in the neck all right. However, if it was done from the posters own equipment, you would not have recourse to complaining to an employer or educational institute (I guess that is who the clause has in mind?).

If someone is posting from their own equipment as you put it then they can be reported to their Internet Service Provider as being in breach of contract
of the terms and conditions of their contract with them and have their service terminated.

All ISP have clauses about not using their service to abuse or commit illegal acts.

Most employers have written into their contracts or employee hand books
guidelines for using the company's internet.

I had someone leave a long string of abusive comments on my journals.ie
and I tracked back the IP to a certain company and asked what their IT polices were. They traced who had been doing that in breach of the terms and conditions of their employment and has they were not out of their probation they were let go. I do not feel bad about this what so ever, their comments were abusive in the extreme and so was their harassment of me.

This isn't rocket science, if someone is using their work/school/college internet connection it can be traced back and the site owners have do so in the past and I am sure if they needed to again will do so.

I'm sure that the admins see contacting people in the real life as very much the effort of last resort and only when all other avenues have been exhausted and not done on a whim.

As for what is an attack there have been charming people who try and attack/hack the site or try many different tactics to try and destroy the communities here with mistrust and social engineering or constantly creating accounts to have a go at the site as a whole, or certain posters on the site.

CFlower

Thaedydal wrote: »

...I'm sure that the admins see contacting people in the real life as very much the effort of last resort and only when all other avenues have been exhausted and not done on a whim.

As for what is an attack there have been charming people who try and attack/hack the site or try many different tactics to try and destroy the communities here with mistrust and social engineering or constantly creating accounts to have a go at the site as a whole, or certain posters on the site.

That all seems fair enough. A person who felt that a contact was not warranted or the response of employer or service provider was disproportionate would have various avenues open to them.

I'm interested in which you say about the type of attack the site has experienced, but I doubt you want to go over what you mean by "mistrust and social engineering". Is there an old thread on this about the place somewhere that would explain this ?

ShakeAndBake

DeVore wrote: »

We've been reporting people to their workplace/boss/nanny since day 1. If you attack my site, I will attack your life. There is no change here except we are covered in law now too.


This is still a benevolent dictatorship you know.

DeV.

There is everyones answer. It is DeVores site.As he gets older and all sensible then the site has to as well. If people don't like were he is taking his site then just leave or when the new T&Cs come in just start a new account that agrees with them? Ergo you old account will be under the older remit.
That is my intention. I joined in 99 back when boards was the craic and you could call someone ghey and it was the norm. When you start to see things change in a certain way, which was a natural evolution of the site you have to make a decision that suits you as the end user.I ditched older accounts as I was young and foolish back then.

There is too much smoke and mirrors here these days concerning the sites future direction. I believe that certain individuals think that boards.ie is going to be some important power house in Irelands social and political future. Sure there may even be a TD in it at some stage. Maybe even a new political party? who knows? Might be.

Judging by some of the posts here there is an indication that there is a big discussion somewhere else on boards about this and only the mods are being involved.

If boards.ie really cared what people thought it would have followed the standard Announcement routine. Instead it appeared in the new announcement area for a short time and then only became a topic for discussion if you logged in.

Why not have a normal site wide announcement? Why not let non logged in people see the debate? Being this new power house and new modern media what is there to fear? Feedback did disappear of the front page for a reason but now that it is lolocat free why not put it back?

Back in about 2003 boards was once described being like a city with its various areas. Now it thinks it is a country and it needs things like constitutions.

Have always enjoyed this site as a resource and will continue doing so. But this account does not agree with your new T&Cs. They are only out to give boards.ie ownership of rights so that they can control the site content for their purposes. That is just the way it is and agree or leave or start a new account are the options that I can see.

Merry Christmas All.

Nevyn

CFlower wrote: »

That all seems fair enough. A person who felt that a contact was not warranted or the response of employer or service provider was disproportionate would have various avenues open to them.

yup.

CFlower wrote: »

I'm interested in which you say about the type of attack the site has experienced, but I doubt you want to go over what you mean by "mistrust and social engineering". Is there an old thread on this about the place somewhere that would explain this ?

Here.


While the majority of users never ever get a ban and while there is a wonderful % of people who are very helpful ( who help make this site what it is ) there are still a few who just like to see the world burn and will do things just to see if they can.

CFlower

Thaedydal wrote: »

yup.


Here.

While the majority of users never ever get a ban and while there is a wonderful % of people who are very helpful ( who help make this site what it is ) there are still a few who just like to see the world burn and will do things just to see if they can.

Thankyou, but that gave me a headache. The real world never looked so good.

ynotdu

Unless the laws in Ireland have been changed, ANY internet site would have to go through the Guards to take any action action against an individual.

If the isp gave out names of subscribers willy nilly upon request then the account holder would have recourse to bring legal action for breach of privacy.

Having said that most internet sites have changed their T&C's in the last couple of years.It would be crazy of them not to in order to protect themselves from Litigation,it started in America were a single devious individual could be awarded so much money they could close a site.

The site owners have to protect themselves,sad but true the 'innocent'days are over on the www!:(

Wibbs

ShakeAndBake wrote: »

If boards.ie really cared what people thought it would have followed the standard Announcement routine. Instead it appeared in the new announcement area for a short time and then only became a topic for discussion if you logged in.

Why not have a normal site wide announcement?

Is this correct? If it is, it is a valid point. If a sitewide change of sorts of this nature is happening, especially if it pertains to copyright/licencing/ownership of user content(which may or may not be fully thrashed out yet), then it should be globally announced and viewable. For all concerned, both users and Boards. ie. OK most won't give it much thought, but some will. Again most will be ok with it, but it does need exposure. Avoid headaches down the line for all.

As an aside?

I believe that certain individuals think that boards.ie is going to be some important power house in Irelands social and political future. Sure there may even be a TD in it at some stage. Maybe even a new political party? who knows? Might be.

Possible, but I doubt it. I would say it and sites like it are more likely to continue to grow to the point where they are large scale content providers, as well as or more than communities, trumping or co existing in new ways with older media/information vectors. Which can be a good or bad thing. Meh history shows us it's usually both. Either way, bad or good, change is always good long term. Defo good in this country though, considering its current and past media. Another iron in the fire can only be a good thing. It is interesting though. Or maybe thats just me.

I think it's already happening here. There are a lot of(far more) viewers and lurkers and readers. Just popped into the Ladies lounge. 37 people active. 5 members & 32 guests. After hours; 205 active. 75 members & 130 guests. PI. 44. 10 members & 34 guests. Politics. 65. 26 members & 39 guests. Poker. 39. 11 members & 28 guests. etc. The entire site? At this moment? 1950 viewers. 557 registered, 1393 guests. In general I've noted this kind of ratio, if not a higher one at other times. There are more readers than writers. Cool I say. In a way this community will still grow, but the viewers will grow with it. By the figures alone, its as much of a content provider as a community. When movable type printing first came out, yes there were writers and academics and printers, but the bulk were readers of the new information media. No harm either. It brought many disparate people together, who woud otherwise have never crossed paths.

While I view with suspicion(and oft mirth) google stats and the like as Web 1.0 thinking dressed up in new(emperor transparent) clothes, I do think this is an actual change for good and sites like Boards could be at the forefront of that change. It's matured well and suffered equally well many slings and arrows.

My genuine concern is that because it's ploughing new ground, the T&C have to be more than some beige average linear law types notion of "well it worked before and others use similar". Robert Maxwell has recently drawn a line in the sand re free web news. Irritating and olde world thinking? Yep. Pointless? Maybe not. Law has a tendency to go with precedence, old thinking and where the money lays. If we all want a free and useful conduit online, its stuff like this T&C that needs to be well fashioned out of the gate. IMHO copyright/licencing is where it may be weak.

All new conduits face this. They all face being consumed by whatever passes for the mainstream. And every new conduit and it's users thought they would be somehow different. Printing did. As did radio and TV and films among others. I'd hate to see it go that way, for this or any other community based site. It's almost inevitable it will change and bring some of that on board, but for real change, for good or ill, that should be resisted and thought about more.

Sweet zombie jeeebus. That was a bit long winded as an aside. Even for me.:o I have to confess an evening of fine wines and good company. Ahhh drunken posting. Rarely done it before, but I can see it's attractions

Jazzy

DeVore wrote: »

diatribe

you are just so excellent with words. where did you study?

onq

Seems like the usual badly written, poorly proofread one-sided piece that publishers worldwide think protects them.

For example, regarding material published - although quotations therein may be termed fair use the posters definitely do not and can not confer copyright to Boards.ie.

You are Web publishers.
You need to review boards.ie liability in the public domain.
I suspect you are unwise to think that setting terms for laypersons expecting them to be competent enough to check copyright issues absolves you in any way from your responsibilities.

I hope you've tried to do your due diligence and paid a solicitor al of money to look over this.
Really though, you need an Opinion based on recent case law - a Barister's Opinion.
Then you take out the appropriate insurance and wait for the day.

Someone somewhere will post under the GPL.
Someone else will include a copyrighted article extract.
Another person will post something he himself has already copyrighted.

I doubt the copyright will pass to you in the way you describe.
Not deleting such posts leaves the site not in compliance with its TAC.
At that point you've set a precedent which looks like it undermines the new TAC.

Get a Barrister's Opinion.
Read the new Defamation Act.
http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/eAct/2009/a3109.pdf
And try and loosen up a little for your own sakes.

HTH

ONQ.

masteroftherealm

ynotdu wrote: »

Unless the laws in Ireland have been changed, ANY internet site would have to go through the Guards to take any action action against an individual.

If the isp gave out names of subscribers willy nilly upon request then the account holder would have recourse to bring legal action for breach of privacy.

Having said that most internet sites have changed their T&C's in the last couple of years.It would be crazy of them not to in order to protect themselves from Litigation,it started in America were a single devious individual could be awarded so much money they could close a site.

The site owners have to protect themselves,sad but true the 'innocent'days are over on the www!:(

No but boards can contact the ISP with an IP Address which the ISP can match to an account and take action themselves on.

fozzle

Darragh, in the TOU it specifies that users between 13 and 18 years of age need permission from a parent or guardian, in the Privacy Policy the specified age group is 13 to 17. Sorry if it's already pointed out - by the time I got through the two threads my brain was too fried by screaming-train-baby to read any more.

Steveire

Hi,

Can I get some more information on these points from the terms of use?

You agree NOT to use Boards.ie to:

• modify, adapt, translate, or reverse engineer any portion of Boards.ie, or use any robot, spider, site search/retrieval application, or other device to retrieve or index any portion of Boards.ie, except as expressly authorised in writing by Boards.ie
• reformat or frame any portion of the web pages that are part of Boards.ie

One of my "to do someday" tasks is writing software to use boards without a web browser. These terms might make the idea a non-starter on boards, so I'd like to know what you think.

There is already some work started on getting content from KDE forums out of the web browser and into kmail or a more specialized application. I was considering adapting that work to boards, or more generally any vBulletin based website.

That could possibly (I haven't actually looked considerably at this yet) involve writing code to parse the html response of a request or several responses of several requests, extracting the content of threads and posts and caching it in a format usable without a web browser (through kmail/knode or desktop widgets for example) and providing a way to respond to threads. It could possibly also involve retrieving and responding to PMs in some way more convenient than with a web browser.

Would such a thing be against the terms of use? It would not be a robot, but would respond to users requesting a thread or post, just like a web browser would.

Not directly related, but leading to similar questions, is it intended to be against the terms of use to use greasemonkey or similar to change the appearance of the site in a browser or to add features? Years ago I wrote a greasemonkey script to remove the milonic menu and use a self written menu which worked with any vBulletin site and placed the menu at the top and the bottom of threads and forums.

Is it against it against the terms to use adblock? It changes the format of the page. How much control does boards.ie claim about what I can do with the data of the response to a HTTP request?

Thanks,

Steve.

johnnyskeleton

DeVore wrote: »

We've been reporting people to their workplace/boss/nanny since day 1. If you attack my site, I will attack your life.

With the greatest of respect, comments like these really worry me and have the potential to discourage people to express their opinions freely.

Rev. BlueJeans

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, comments like these really worry me and have the potential to discourage people to express their opinions freely.

As do the anecdotes of people having received IP and other information, seemingly based only on their own concerns (which may or may not be justified-my concern being that those who know those in the know can access personal info for their own ends-I am not suggesting the poster in question wasn't justifiably worried, because I simply don't know).

I trust DeV implicitly, but he can't be accountable for all of those who run the site on his behalf-and let's be honest-as far as us users go, he is the founder admin-where are the rest of them?

bug

I've just logged in for the first time in a week or three and been met with this.

I joined when there were no terms and conditions other than the individual charters on each forum, which were to be adhered to rather than legally binding.

After a quick read, (obviously you lot have been discussing this at length), I disagree with the following:

"By posting any Material on or through Boards.ie, you grant us a limited license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Materials in connection with Boards.ie or the promotion thereof.

The license you grant to us is non-exclusive, royalty free and fully paid, sub licensable, and worldwide.

You agree that your Material displayed on Boards.ie may continue to appear on Boards.ie, even after you have terminated your user privileges or have had your user privileges terminated by Boards.ie. "

This is all new to me, because I granted no such licence, limited or otherwise to reproduce, sub-licence or other wise at my time of joining. Is this retrospective?

Should I discontinue using this account now that I have publicly noted that I disagree with the terms and conditions?

Eoin

Have you read the full thread? I am pretty sure there were T&Cs when you signed up. Also, there's loads of clarification on the licence to reproduce the content. Everytime this page is loaded, your content is being reproduced - therefore the need to grant the licence.

Rev. BlueJeans

eoin wrote: »

Have you read the full thread? I am pretty sure there were T&Cs when you signed up. Also, there's loads of clarification on the licence to reproduce the content. Everytime this page is loaded, your content is being reproduced - therefore the need to grant the licence.

There is indeed, and although that has been clarified here, it needs to be done properly within this document. Ass covering for the purpose of rendering content is, it seems necessary, but leaving an open door to cherry pick our ramblings, is not.

I know the lads are probably still on their break, but this should be put to bed once they return-it is after all, them, at the behest of some bespectacled bean counter legal eagle, who put it out there in the first place.

Darragh

Yes, still on the break, but reading all the time.

Not only will I be putting this - and all the other matters - to bed once we get back, but I'll be tucking it in tightly with a little teddy bear*, some hot chocolate, a copy of its favourite book and a healthy dose of chloroform and make sure that revision 3 of these TOU don't have to happen for a good long while.

Thanks all for the feedback - I'm compiling the list of what is going to our advisor today and will keep you posted on progress.

Hope you're enjoying the festive season

Darragh

(* = no, not that bear)

Nevyn

bug wrote: »

I've just logged in for the first time in a week or three and been met with this.

I joined when there were no terms and conditions other than the individual charters on each forum, which were to be adhered to rather than legally binding.

After a quick read, (obviously you lot have been discussing this at length), I disagree with the following:

"By posting any Material on or through Boards.ie, you grant us a limited license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Materials in connection with Boards.ie or the promotion thereof.

The license you grant to us is non-exclusive, royalty free and fully paid, sub licensable, and worldwide.

You agree that your Material displayed on Boards.ie may continue to appear on Boards.ie, even after you have terminated your user privileges or have had your user privileges terminated by Boards.ie. "

This is all new to me, because I granted no such licence, limited or otherwise to reproduce, sub-licence or other wise at my time of joining. Is this retrospective?

Should I discontinue using this account now that I have publicly noted that I disagree with the terms and conditions?

There were T&C when you created your account.
Boards already archived off the last 10 years and gave a bunch of people access to a copy of it to do things with.

http://data.sioc-project.org/

Welcome

Welcome to the boards.ie SIOC Data Competition! This is a competition in which entrants must do something interesting with the boards.ie SIOC Data Set (e.g. create a web application, write a report on analyses of the data, build a tool to visualise the information, etc.). Read the rules.

There will be three prizes for the top entries, as judged by an independent panel of three experts:

* The first prize is an Amazon.com voucher for $4000!
* The second prize is an Amazon.com voucher for $2000!
* The third prize is an Amazon.com voucher for $1000!



Overview of the data

Ten years of discussions from the Irish forum site boards.ie are available in SIOC format at the download page. The top-level site document links to users (and to FOAF files) as well as to top-level forums. Forums link to subforums and threads, which finally link to individual posts. The posts link to each other based on replying and quoting. The FOAF files also link to each other, describing a social network based on the users' buddy lists.

The data in total (over 10 years) is around 9 million documents and takes about 50 gigabytes of disk space, so we have sliced it into smaller archives. The first slices available are all of the data for the year 1998, the site, forums, users and FOAF documents - all in RDF/XML file format. More information on the structure is available.

The Clamper

Hi
I have read some of the pages on this thread, i admit not reading all the info can possibly blur my reply, however, here goes my tuppence worth

i can only guess as to the reasons for this updated rules change,

these things are usually borne out of pedantic nerdy types causing problems deliberately or by someone misreading the rules to suit their needs

i am surmising here, but it appears that some people are having a problem with the changes to the point where common sense is going out the bloody window

if you hate the changes that much, then do us a favor and go wherever they allow the punters to run the site without boundaries or regs

it should be clear and obv that these changes are to protect the users from spammers etc and keep an air of professionalism about it

c'mon lads, (and ladies) common sense is all they seem to want, i cant imagine that they are deliberately spoiling your fun or making life difficult on purpose

cut them some slack and row in behind the rule changes or go somewhere else, its really that simple

I personally may not always agree with the decisions etc of the mods but i know who runs it and have to respect that they control it and if i dont like it, the vote with my feet
i think its a great site, loads of info for my needs, and thats all i am looking for

Derek

johnnyskeleton

The Clamper wrote: »

if you hate the changes that much, then do us a favor and go wherever they allow the punters to run the site without boundaries or regs

...

c'mon lads, (and ladies) common sense is all they seem to want, i cant imagine that they are deliberately spoiling your fun or making life difficult on purpose

cut them some slack and row in behind the rule changes or go somewhere else, its really that simple

Well if you look at the first post by Darragh, who speaks for and is one of punters who run the site, he specifically asked for:

Darragh wrote:

This is the first revision of both documents and are an important step for us. We welcome all questions, though if there is something you disagree with, please do let us know below with your reason.

Your input will be most appreciated and valid points will be factored in to the next revision.

So, quite apart from asking people to row in behind them, they are looking for constructive feedback for their next revision. I don't think anyone on this thread is asking for the site to be run without boundaries or regulations.

CFlower

Thaedydal wrote: »

There were T&C when you created your account.
Boards already archived off the last 10 years and gave a bunch of people access to a copy of it to do things with.

http://data.sioc-project.org/

Any feedback on whether they were takers for this, who they were, and what they are doing with the data ?

onq

Wibbs wrote: »

<snip thoughtful long-winded post>

Sweet zombie jeeebus. That was a bit long winded as an aside. Even for me.:o I have to confess an evening of fine wines and good company. Ahhh drunken posting. Rarely done it before, but I can see it's attractions

Its attractions would be appreciated even more if your readers were similarly pasted.

Pass the vino.

ONQ.

Nevyn

CFlower wrote: »

Any feedback on whether they were takers for this, who they were, and what they are doing with the data ?

There were several.

http://sioc-project.org/node/335
http://www.sioc.me/
http://markmail.org/message/fdtlkwdacfcbljn7

HereSince2003

The manner in which this is happening is a bit dubious to me. Don't agree with the new terms retrospectively as there were none when I joined in 2003.
If some one is going to tell me that there were T&C's then(Keep seeing that mentioned a lot in this thread) when I joined then please provide a link or a copy of them. I could not find any, nor using other sources could I find any links to them.

Ponster

It's not the answer that you're looking for but seeing as you didn't actually create an account in 2003 you would never have seen the T&C.

People who lurk don't have to sign up/agree to anything.

aidan_walsh

HereSince2003 wrote: »

The manner in which this is happening is a bit dubious to me. Don't agree with the new terms retrospectively as there were none when I joined in 2003.
If some one is going to tell me that there were T&C's then(Keep seeing that mentioned a lot in this thread) when I joined then please provide a link or a copy of them. I could not find any, nor using other sources could I find any links to them.

Did you see the ones when you signed up in 2009?