Why are people closing/deleting their accounts?

Morag

CDfm wrote: »

And when they showed me what they meant you got this

http://www.tigersairsoft.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=232

That's 9 posts from over a year ago and not relevant to this thread at all.

CDfm

Sharrow wrote: »

That's 9 posts from over a year ago and not relevant to this thread at all.

Yes, a bad example.

I must get out more. How 3 students kept me chatting and got away with not clearing up beer bottles after a party. Have the fcekers played me

The Left Hand Of God

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

I can see that and understand that. I actually agree with it.

My missus though has refused to post on the site since the terms were introduced.

One can assume given your argument that she has the legal high ground if she ever wanted her posts deleted? Having not signed in and there for not agreed to new T&C's?

Anyone?

Morag

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

Anyone?

If she has a query re her account she should get in touch with those who handle accounts and changes to them.

Hello@boards.ie

Tallon

Sharrow wrote: »

If she has a query re her account she should get in touch with those who handle accounts and changes to them.

Hello@boards.ie

Well it's more a feedback issue, and this is feedback...

Penn

Tallon wrote: »

Well it's more a feedback issue, and this is feedback...

It's a very specific issue relating to one single account. I don't think it is really feedback, to be honest.

Dav

I have a half a response for this thread written that I've been working on since Monday but I keep running out of time.

Two quick points I would make:

We do not enter into a legal contract with anyone who signs up to use this site, it's an agreement to abide by the Ts & Cs etc. Were that the case, we could, for example, sue every spammer for breach of contract This also addresses any issue surrounding minors signing up as a minor cannot enter into a contract (with a few exceptions for things like purchasing food I believe - it's been a while since I saw that law). More on that later (I hope).

For whatever reasons Left Hand's wife doesn't want to use the site anymore, that is of course her choice, but she has no legal claim to anything I'm afraid. Our own solicitors and the Data Protection Commissioners have confirmed that this is the case - the content is ours.

I will try to come back ot this later today and finish what I've been writing to try and address everyone's points.

Thanks folks.

Wolfe Tone

What rights does boards have over the content people post? Are they free to do with it whatever they want?

As an example, hypothetically, if boards decided to release a book (lets say down the line a boardsie becomes super famous) consisting of that posters quotes would that be legal?

Insect Overlord

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What rights does boards have over the content people post? Are they free to do with it whatever they want?

As an example, hypothetically, if boards decided to release a book (lets say down the line a boardsie becomes super famous) consisting of that posters quotes would that be legal?

I know it's only hypothetical, but that would go totally against the ethos of the whole site (as I know it). Makes for an interesting "what if?" discussion, I guess. Never going to happen though.

Wolfe Tone

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I know it's only hypothetical, but that would go totally against the ethos of the whole site (as I know it). Makes for an interesting "what if?" discussion, I guess. Never going to happen though.

Well you can never say never can you?

While I don't think for a second it would be done at the present time who is to say what could happen, 10, 15, 20 years down the line? (if the site still exists of course). Thats why I said its hypothetical, if the site "owns" the posts what rights do they have legally, and how can they use them?

While I know nothing will happen to them besides just being left for the world to see, I'm curious what they could do if they, or new owners, or whatever, decided to.

Dravokivich

WT,

It'd be the equivalent of "Over Heard in Dublin" I suppose. :pac:

There'd be no sense in just gathering up a load of posts by someone and publishing them as they'd be out of context without the remainder of any thread they were made in. Which is the reasoning behind not deleting posts for the sake of a user that's left. Context could be lost in the thread by doing so.

My name is URL

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What rights does boards have over the content people post? Are they free to do with it whatever they want?

As an example, hypothetically, if boards decided to release a book (lets say down the line a boardsie becomes super famous) consisting of that posters quotes would that be legal?

That's kind of covered in the Terms of Use.

You own all of the Material you post on Boards.ie and we do not claim ownership of that Material. However, we need your permission to be able to display that Material and in some cases to modify it for best display – for different browsers, for our mobile site, and so on.

Consequently, by posting any Material on or through Boards.ie, you grant us a limited licence to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Material.

The licence you grant to us is non-exclusive, royalty-free and fully paid, sub-licensable, and worldwide. This licence applies only to use of the Material for the purpose of providing the Boards.ie service.

From time to time we may seek to use users' Material for the purpose of advertising or marketing Boards.ie. However we will not use your Material for this purpose without your prior express written permission.

later12

Dav wrote: »

Our own solicitors and the Data Protection Commissioners have confirmed that this is the case - the content is ours.

That is not what is stated in the T&Cs.

You own all of the Material you post on Boards.ie and we do not claim ownership of that Material.

CDfm

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

As an example, hypothetically, if boards decided to release a book (lets say down the line a boardsie becomes super famous) consisting of that posters quotes would that be legal?

I imagine my posts are particularly worthy

But seriously, some of the content of the History Thread is original and well researched , but it could be any forum. What would the approach be if it was published inder someones by-line in the Journal.ie would the user get paid or at least a credit .

Is there a policy.

later12

I think in the above case boards.ie may have to credit you as the author of such material, but they would nevertheless be free to reproduce or pass on your material to a third party, e.g. to The Journal.

How The Journal treats the material, or whether they credit you as the author is something that is unclear, however. I imagine that regular copyright law would apply, since this website cannot agree to a contract on your behalf with a third party? Maybe?

Wibbs

this C From time to time we may seek to use users' Material for the purpose of advertising or marketing Boards.ie. However we will not use your Material for this purpose without your prior express written permission. seems to be the policy on that score.

Dav wrote: »

For whatever reasons Left Hand's wife doesn't want to use the site anymore, that is of course her choice, but she has no legal claim to anything I'm afraid. Our own solicitors and the Data Protection Commissioners have confirmed that this is the case - the content is ours.

In which case users don't own their words which appears to go against what the T&C's state and users sign up to; It explicitly states You own all of the Material you post on Boards.ie and we do not claim ownership of that Material. If Boards doesn't claim ownership of the material, then the content can't be Boards. Or at least it seems vague to me. Permission is given by the content providers to post on Boards under the rules of same.

It's either one or the other, or could be well argued that way. It still doesn't answer the question of what happens if a user decides to withdraw said permission and limited licence. It still doesn't answer the question of what happens in the case of a user who never agreed to the later T&C and hasn't posted since. By doing so they've not agreed to them.

For the record, just so I'm clear(channels ambulance chaser oooommmm); I, the entity and person known as Wibbs. (oh god):D and the person behind said entity, known to quite a few around here in life, have no desire now or in the future to remove any of my content, except where a mod or other agent of Boards deems it necessary for the good functioning of the place, so long as the same trusted folks and ethos are running the show, or if my life is in peril(Could happen with the Brevity or Death Brigade). Even then my "meh" factor would likely kick in TBH.

My concern is that someone may and more probably will somewhere down the line and cause problems for this community. It would be my take that rather than being grey about "You do/don't own your own words... kinda, but its complex", either a more copperfastened T&C that states that you don't as far as deletion is concerned. Or better yet IMHO as EU/irish law could follow the French privacy model and force something upon us, a better mechanism to allow for Boards to "delete" a user without ruining the flow of the community.

metrovelvet

This is very confusing.

You either own your words or you don't. So either boards is responsible for them or it isnt. Make up your minds.

I think one of the mods or some Boards person, maybe Devore- I cant remember, told people 'own your words.' Well? How can you own your words if you don't own them?

And if you do own them, you should be able to take them back.

The Left Hand Of God

Tallon wrote: »

Well it's more a feedback issue, and this is feedback...

Barrington wrote: »

It's a very specific issue relating to one single account. I don't think it is really feedback, to be honest.

Actually it is not a specific issue. It was a general question or a hypothetical one if you so wish.

Read up tbh. I was pondering on something in general.

The Left Hand Of God

Dav wrote: »

For whatever reasons Left Hand's wife doesn't want to use the site anymore, that is of course her choice, but she has no legal claim to anything I'm afraid. Our own solicitors and the Data Protection Commissioners have confirmed that this is the case - the content is ours.

I appreciate you taking time to answer the question.

I have one more that you might run by your solicitors and the data people or who ever.

As she has never agreed to the new T&C's by asking for the posts to be deleted from public view where would she stand? Technically you still have them, the content is yours too, just not publically available anymore?

My confusion arises from the fact that I was out with some friends from A. Cox and co. and they held a different opinion. Was told if you search boards in years gone by you can find the owners telling people "you own your own words" prior to the new T&Cs.
Obviously this was just drunk talk and not serious stuff

CDfm

Wibbs wrote: »

this C From time to time we may seek to use users' Material for the purpose of advertising or marketing Boards.ie. However we will not use your Material for this purpose without your prior express written permission. seems to be the policy on that score.

In which case users don't own their words which appears to go against what the T&C's state and users sign up to; It explicitly states You own all of the Material you post on Boards.ie and we do not claim ownership of that Material. If Boards doesn't claim ownership of the material, then the content can't be Boards. Or at least it seems vague to me. Permission is given by the content providers to post on Boards under the rules of same.

It's either one or the other, .

Now I am confused.

When I post on the history forum a bit of me says this will be read by academics etc that post here so I want them to respect my knowledge of an area.( I challenged a newspaper article used by another user writtten by a Patrick Pearse biographer as the material just wrong) I sometimes post what is new or original material, I am generous about citing my sources etc. And I accept that it is in the public domain etc.

So if the same material turned up elsewhere there would be a bit of plagarism involved or copywrite issues.

Has this happened.

Wibbs

Boards has stated in the past that they'll go after wholesale plagiarism of the users content. I've no doubt they would in a clear cut case.

I know from other sites I'm in, big biz does do a bit of trawling for ideas. Coolhunting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coolhunting. That ship has kinda sailed. I'd be pretty sure coolhunting of a sort also happens with academics CDFM and coolhunting without citing sources too. Just like from a different angle students have been found to be doing copypasta in lieu of their own work and research. It happened to me on another site a few years ago where I was waxing lyrical on an area of interest of mine. A few weeks later another user sent me a link to some gimp's musings in academia(fancy enough one too) paraphrasing me damn near point for point with a bit of the window dressing of the university schooled mind unlike my own. Turned out he was a low level lurker on the forum in question. I fired off a couple of emails to said college and had it taken down. Fair enough. That said what I love about the interweb is that ideas are very easily exchanged. That new ideas forward are going to be by necessity many times more collaborative and from many more sources and more amateur and unusual sources than before. This is a Good Thing. It would be nice to acknowledge those sources though. Like I said if I found similar on Boards and brought it to the offices attention I'm confident they'd go to bat for us in that case.

Plagiarism and copyright on the interweb is a minefield anyway. It was less an issue before big money started to become more of a presence. Before pay to view mainstream sites came on board. Where the money is the law usually follows and we're well past the wild west stage of the web.

Hence if I see where someone quotes an article from a pay to view outlet bypassing said requirement to pay I report it, because IMH that's a potential issue for this community. Boards rightly bans talk about dodgy torrents files, warez and the like nevermind links, yet I've yet to see one of these reports actioned and the copyright content removed. That in my view is a mistake. Both for the user and more likely Boards as like I said the law follows the potential money. Just as I have no doubt Boards would pursue another site for nicking stuff wholesale from here(from a sense of don't be a dick as much as anything) and this site is free to view, I'm quite sure Mr Murdoch and his ilk would have shítfit over nicking stuff from their site where their revenue comes from signing up to view the content.

later12

I'm sure there are some people reading this wondering why people are so concerned about owning their words, but it is a serious issue for some people.

It came up recently in the Economics forum, when the other mod there came up with the idea that users might publish our previous research work on boards.ie (there is a thread about this in moderators). It was a great idea. I assumed the only copyright issue related to users not crediting other authors of the work in question, or falsely representing themselves as the author of a paper. I don't think any of us considered that by posting the material on boards, we were granting boards.ie license to "modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Material".

Personally, that is not something that concerns me, because I am not daft enough to believe that any essay that I have ever written on UK agricultural prices or the financial health of the arts in the Free State is going to be of interest to anyone.

However, it may not be the same for all users of the economics forum, some of whom may have been engaged in research which, if licensing it out, they may not wish to share after all.
I think some clarification would really be appreciated. Who owns these papers when they are published on boards? And perhaps it should be made clear in the charters that boards has the right to "modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Material"?

metrovelvet

^Wibbs- are you allowed to use that picture of Jack Kelly?

He could be in a union that has rules about using his picture without royalty payments?

Don't want to rain on your parade...just wondering....

I think I may have plagiarised myself a couple of times on here. Not sure.

later12

I think I may have plagiarised myself a couple of times on here. Not sure.

I think by not referencing you I may have just impugned copyright law.

Insect Overlord

metrovelvet wrote: »

^Wibbs- are you allowed to use that picture of Jack Kelly?

Frank Kelly.

OutlawPete

Should this all not be dealt with in a separate thread at this stage?

The OP's question has gone relatively unaddressed it would seem.

thebullkf wrote: »

Hi Folks,

I assume this is the correct place for this?
I've noticed that quite a few people have requested that their accounts be closed, seasoned poaters some of them as well
Is this a regular thing (and i just never noticed it before) or a recent phenomenon?

thanks

CDfm

I wouldn't be that passionate about the aul history to check plagarism but don't like badly researched published work being passed of as the real deal and know the difference.

I lol'd at the Academic getting Wibbed and there are a few historians that deserve a wibbing and it could become a boardsism for getting named and shamed.

And as much as I like the intellectually challenging stuff I need my lowbrow.

Wibbs

later10 wrote: »

I'm sure there are some people reading this wondering why people are so concerned about owning their words, but it is a serious issue for some people.

I agree L, but by inputting/displaying/publishing their musings online on a public forum, any public forum anywhere, they have to understand that "owning their words" is a very grey area indeed. I suppose until the time comes when you can digitally fingerprint all your words and have them traceable to you and you alone that's going to be the case. Even then that could just be ignored anyway. In many parts of the world copyright, trademark or licence doesn't seem to have a local translation. If Chinese folks are producing copies of luxury goods by the container load and every Thomas, Richard and Harold is lighting up the torrents search engines, all with relative impunity, words and ideas on a website are pretty far down the list.

Personally speaking I'd not put anything on any public forum anywhere if I cared about it being stolen or not attributed to me. No matter how strong the backup of Boards would be, some bloke in India nicking an idea for an Android app or somesuch from a user here is unlikely to be unduly troubled. That's the other side to owning your words. It brings responsibility to realise their importance and how far an for how long they may travel. That's the great thing and the bad thing about the web, with the balance way more on the former IMHO. Today anywhere is just a click away to someone somewhere.(c)*

However, it may not be the same for all users of the economics forum, some of whom may have been engaged in research which, if licensing it out, they may not wish to share after all.
I think some clarification would really be appreciated. Who owns these papers when they are published on boards? And perhaps it should be made clear in the charters that boards has the right to "modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Material"?

IIRC Darragh, Dav and the office had this discussion re the Photography and create writing forums and like the T&C states the stuff can't be used by Boards except for the purposes of well... being Boards. The user still retains ownership, copyright I guess?

metrovelvet wrote:

^Wibbs- are you allowed to use that picture of Jack Kelly?

He could be in a union that has rules about using his picture without royalty payments?

Fair point, though fair use may come into it. I acknowledge Frank Kelly's and Hat Trick Productions ownership of this image though just to be safe. I could argue I'm keeping him in the public eye and so far haven't brought him or the production company into disrepute. Yet... Hell now I want payment. It is a good point as people across the interweb have icons and demotivational posters etc that are clearly copyrighted imagery involved. It's almost the backbone of the whole thing and I doubt that's gonna change anytime soon and hopefully never.



(c) Wibbs 2011

Wibbs

OutlawPete wrote: »

Should this all not be dealt with in a separate thread at this stage?

Maybe, though it is kinda in the same area.

The OP's question has gone relatively unaddressed it would seem.

The first two pages gave some good reasons(inc a post by your good self). Ber summed the bones of it up here I reckon: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72887813&postcount=24

OutlawPete

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe, though it is kinda in the same area.

I don't think it is at all tbh. We are now discussing who has rights to what users post on Boards and should they have a right to remove it. Unless that is one of the reasons why users are leaving, then I don't see how it is. An interesting discussion, just one that I feel should have it's own thread.

Wibbs wrote: »

The first two pages gave some good reasons(inc a post by your good self). Ber summed the bones of it up here I reckon: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72887813&postcount=24

I don't think that even touched the reasons why people are leaving.

Although, I get the feeling if people did start discussing why users have left recently, they would soon be silenced.