TWC policy vs. Intellectual Property rights.

[Conquistatore]

You still retain the rights to your property. Just because you may or may not get banned doesn't transfer ownership of the work. Granted you may not be able to view the work or edit the work if you are banned but you still have access and control over it through other means. Also the ToS clearly explains how this site works and the Tribunal/Moderation system. It is the posters responsibility (especially if they have work on here) to abide by the ToS and not receive any infractions or bans. You basically agree to the terms and to abide by them when you register so it is up to the individual to maintain a good reputation so they can freely post and contribute AAR's, mods or anything else.

Lol @ Garb. I think I just said what you said, just not in a funny way.

[Hunter Makoy]

1.



2.

Let's suppose that Garb., being a famous painter and all, decides to hand to the Guggenheim his latest oeuvre "Springtime with fawns on the TWC landscape". Let us suppose that the Guggenheim asks Garb. to make sure that he reads and understands the rules of the Museum and Garb. does. Now, Garb., being apart from an artistic genius a tormented genius, gets drunk and disorderly and the museum restricts his access until he sobers up.

Now Garb., in his intoxicated state of mind does not want to see his painting, (which he can do via an internet camera) does not want to remove his painting (which can be done by requesting its removal) but wants to go himself into the museum and burn it with a torch. Now, of course he can do that when his restriction period is over but Garb. wants to burn it with a torch right now!

Is Garb. right?

1. Whats an oeuvre?

2. You left out the part where the painting in the Museum is merely a replication and you still have the original at home.

[RaZor HeaD]

Having done some research on the web about this subject this afternoon I've found...

- Copyrighted content is never considered to be a part of the public domain unless an author specifically declares that they are doing this.
- Even if the material is not actually a registered copyright, the creative content on a website is always considered copyrighted material anyway.
- The majority of copyright infringement cases only concern the improper copying or transference of content and there does not appear to be anything illegal with the restricting of an author from their content.
- For cases where the content has no (or little) value, the only remedy a web-site would be liable to would be a cease-and-decease order.
- For cases where the content does have value, the penalties for copyright infringement can include having your web-site immediately taken down without notice. This is a new tool passed by Congress as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Additional penalties can also include being blacklisted from organic search results like Google, for instance.

So it seems that it's not illegal to restrict an author from their content, even temporarily, which was my primary concern.
It also appears that since the content of this site (ie. Mods, AARs, general posts etc.) are not considered of any value, the liability to the site would be very minimal.
It's also clearly evident however, that if there was some type of content here that was considered of value and this material was improperly used, then the penalties can be very severe.

BTW.
This is a Question and Suggestion forum and that's all that I've been doing here...asking a few questions and offering some suggestions.
Why is it then that I have to suffer the indignity of being insulted and patronized by some of you for simply trying to be an active, loyal and inquisitive member of your society? My only real concern was inquiring if the administrators of the site have looked into this topic and I seem to be chastised and even belittled for caring. If this matter has already been addressed or is of little concern to the administrators, then why haven't I simply been told that instead of ridiculed and teased.
I've also repeatedly stated that I'm not at all concerned about my content here and am merely positing a hypothetical, but time and again the only response is some version of "why are you so concerned about your content?"

If this is the typical sort of treatment that a Peregrinus can expect to receive from his betters here , then in the future I expect to fully restrict my activities on this site to the Mod forums.

[Garbarsardar]

Having done some research on the web about this subject this afternoon I've found...

- Copyrighted content is never considered to be a part of the public domain unless an author specifically declares that they are doing this.
- Even if the material is not actually a registered copyright, the creative content on a website is always considered copyrighted material anyway.
- The majority of copyright infringement cases only concern the improper copying or transference of content and there does not appear to be anything illegal with the restricting of an author from their content.
- For cases where the content has no (or little) value, the only remedy a web-site would be liable to would be a cease-and-decease order.
- For cases where the content does have value, the penalties for copyright infringement can include having your web-site immediately taken down without notice. This is a new tool passed by Congress as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Additional penalties can also include being blacklisted from organic search results like Google, for instance.

So it seems that it's not illegal to restrict an author from their content, even temporarily, which was my primary concern.
It also appears that since the content of this site (ie. Mods, AARs, general posts etc.) are not considered of any value, the liability to the site would be very minimal.
It's also clearly evident however, that if there was some type of content here that was considered of value and this material was improperly used, then the penalties can be very severe.

BTW.
This is a Question and Suggestion forum and that's all that I've been doing here...asking a few questions and offering some suggestions.
Why is it then that I have to suffer the indignity of being insulted and patronized by some of you for simply trying to be an active, loyal and inquisitive member of your society? My only real concern was inquiring if the administrators of the site have looked into this topic and I seem to be chastised and even belittled for caring. If this matter has already been addressed or is of little concern to the administrators, then why haven't I simply been told that instead of ridiculed and teased.
I've also repeatedly stated that I'm not at all concerned about my content here and am merely positing a hypothetical, but time and again the only response is some version of "why are you so concerned about your content?"

If this is the typical sort of treatment that a Peregrinus can expect to receive from his betters here , then in the future I expect to fully restrict my activities on this site to the Mod forums.

I am sorry but you have a query/ suggestion and two admins discuss it with you, in public and in all good faith and this is "maltreatmnet"?

Admins are the people with the badge "Administrator". All other participants in a thread are entitled to their opinions but they do not express official TWC views.

We are open to discuss anything but we are not willing to stifle critisism whenever it comes from. What more could we do?

[Hunter Makoy]

I am sorry but you have a query/ suggestion and two admins discuss it with you, in public and in all good faith and this is "maltreatmnet"?

Admins are the people with the badge "Administrator". All other participants in a thread are entitled to their opinions but they do not express official TWC views.

We are open to discuss anything but we are not willing to stifle critisism whenever it comes from. What more could we do?

I am sorry but you never answered my ing question Garb! Are you trying to keep me from posting here?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

j/k of course

Frankly, in regards to the OP's last post, I'm really getting sick of the belly aching and melodrama from some people when anyone disagrees with their sentiment or doesn't think its the most important thing in the world. A hypothetical, and rather ridiculous scenario was presented and I must say actually handled by most like it actually means something. This was a topic that is generally not going to be considered unimportant because you generally have not given anything up for good by posting it on this site. Admins, and other members, have done their best to answer your questions. Yes some of them, including me, felt necessary to voice their opinion that this was ultimately not something of much concern, ever. That in reality can be just as helpful as the actual answer it self.

I've also repeatedly stated that I'm not at all concerned about my content here and am merely positing a hypothetical, but time and again the only response is some version of "why are you so concerned about your content?"

I'm sure the staff will be more then willing to take action against these unruly members who also chose to ask a question in the Q&S forums. . .

If this is the typical sort of treatment that a Peregrinus can expect to receive from his betters here , then in the future I expect to fully restrict my activities on this site to the Mod forums.

I don't know, I here in the Mod forums they've recently allowed people to disagree as well.

Good luck though.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Let's suppose that Garb., being a famous painter and all, decides to hand to the Guggenheim his latest oeuvre "Springtime with fawns on the TWC landscape". Let us suppose that the Guggenheim asks Garb. to make sure that he reads and understands the rules of the Museum and Garb. does. Now, Garb., being apart from an artistic genius a tormented genius, gets drunk and disorderly and the museum restricts his access until he sobers up.

Now Garb., in his intoxicated state of mind does not want to see his painting, (which he can do via an internet camera) does not want to remove his painting (which can be done by requesting its removal) but wants to go himself into the museum and burn it with a torch. Now, of course he can do that when his restriction period is over but Garb. wants to burn it with a torch right now!

Is Garb. right?

Trick question? Garb is always right, but in that scenario Garb should logically be wrong. So that posit is an Epimenides Paradox. What do I win?

[Sidmen]

So it seems that it's not illegal to restrict an author from their content, even temporarily, which was my primary concern.
It also appears that since the content of this site (ie. Mods, AARs, general posts etc.) are not considered of any value, the liability to the site would be very minimal.
It's also clearly evident however, that if there was some type of content here that was considered of value and this material was improperly used, then the penalties can be very severe.

Since all content here is freeware, the worst that can happen is that we'll get slapped with a cease and desist order, which requires that the person have already requested that his content stop being shared before filing - and been denied. Since the Administrators have already indicated that they would - if asked - remove the content, there is no liability.

Random question, what made you think of it?

[GrnEyedDvl]

Since all content here is freeware,

No, it isnt. This is why we crack down on people stealing other modders works.

Since the Administrators have already indicated that they would - if asked - remove the content, there is no liability.

Of course we would, when it comes to modding stuff. However we have no obligation to remove every post a person has ever made, nor would we.

[Simetrical]

Since all content here is freeware, the worst that can happen is that we'll get slapped with a cease and desist order, which requires that the person have already requested that his content stop being shared before filing - and been denied. Since the Administrators have already indicated that they would - if asked - remove the content, there is no liability.

Actually, the worst that could happen is if someone hired ninja assassins to kidnap all of us and then torture us to death over the course of decades. If you were referring to legal action, though, anyone who felt like it could file a lawsuit against us for copyright infringement or any other cause. Given that we'd be unable to afford a lawyer to defend ourselves, we'd lose by default and they'd win whatever they felt like. The legal system isn't really fair, unless you have enough money (and not even then, very much).

No, it isnt. This is why we crack down on people stealing other modders works.

Freeware is generally accepted to denote software that's available at no cost, which describes all mods hosted here. It doesn't necessarily mean other people are free to adapt and redistribute it.

However we have no obligation to remove every post a person has ever made, nor would we.

Well . . . we might, actually. I'm not sure. Collections of people's writings are most likely subject to copyright, so they might be able to legally demand we take them down. Since none are likely to bother hiring a lawyer to send us a cease-and-desist letter, though, we're likely safe.

[Scorch]

Actually, the worst that could happen is if someone hired ninja assassins to kidnap all of us and then torture us to death over the course of decades. If you were referring to legal action, though, anyone who felt like it could file a lawsuit against us for copyright infringement or any other cause. Given that we'd be unable to afford a lawyer to defend ourselves, we'd lose by default and they'd win whatever they felt like. The legal system isn't really fair, unless you have enough money (and not even then, very much).

You mean we couldn't rely on your uncanny and, on occasions, frightening knowledge of U.S. law to save us?

[Ummon]

I suspect that it is everyone's right to have a lawyer payed by the state in case he can't afford one.

[pannonian]

You mean we couldn't rely on your uncanny and, on occasions, frightening knowledge of U.S. law to save us?

Sim's knowledge of US law won't save us from the hired ninja assassins.

[Sidmen]

I suspect that it is everyone's right to have a lawyer payed by the state in case he can't afford one.

Only in criminal court, not civil court.

[Ummon]

I see.

[Simetrical]

You mean we couldn't rely on your uncanny and, on occasions, frightening knowledge of U.S. law to save us?

No, because even if I knew enough law to effectively defend us in court rather than just sound smart (I don't), you have to be a licensed lawyer. I guess if I were a defendant I might be allowed to defend myself. But even then, I'd have to fly out to wherever they filed it, which would already be too much for me.

I suspect that it is everyone's right to have a lawyer payed by the state in case he can't afford one.

Only for criminal cases. Otherwise lawyers could employ themselves by having random people file lawsuits against each other and demand the state give them lawyers, I guess. Or something like that. People get much more protection against state prosecution than against private lawsuits generally: look at the standards of evidence required (beyond a reasonable doubt vs. balance of the evidence).

[GrnEyedDvl]

I guess if I were a defendant I might be allowed to defend myself. But even then, I'd have to fly out to wherever they filed it, which would already be too much for me.

The upside is they would have to fly out here (Denver) or hire a local lawyer, and I am not without local connections. I am pretty sure I could make it more expensive for them than they planned on, the money issue works both ways.

But the best thing is to avoid any legal issues in the first place, which we do strive to do.

[Scorch]

No, because even if I knew enough law to effectively defend us in court rather than just sound smart (I don't), you have to be a licensed lawyer. I guess if I were a defendant I might be allowed to defend myself. But even then, I'd have to fly out to wherever they filed it, which would already be too much for me.

Because I was totally serious.

[Hunter Makoy]

No, because even if I knew enough law to effectively defend us in court rather than just sound smart (I don't), you have to be a licensed lawyer. I guess if I were a defendant I might be allowed to defend myself. But even then, I'd have to fly out to wherever they filed it, which would already be too much for me.

Only for criminal cases. Otherwise lawyers could employ themselves by having random people file lawsuits against each other and demand the state give them lawyers, I guess. Or something like that. People get much more protection against state prosecution than against private lawsuits generally: look at the standards of evidence required (beyond a reasonable doubt vs. balance of the evidence).

I don't think you have to have a lawyer in a civil case, just look at Judge Judy and shows like that. Hey, yall could go on that! Think of the exposure for TWC! Its like Jerry Springer in a court room!

The upside is they would have to fly out here (Denver) or hire a local lawyer, and I am not without local connections. I am pretty sure I could make it more expensive for them than they planned on, the money issue works both ways.

But the best thing is to avoid any legal issues in the first place, which we do strive to do.

Thats using your noodle.

Because I was totally serious.

[Simetrical]

Because I was totally serious.

That's good, since I was too.

I don't think you have to have a lawyer in a civil case, just look at Judge Judy and shows like that. Hey, yall could go on that! Think of the exposure for TWC! Its like Jerry Springer in a court room!

That only works if the plaintiff files the complaint in a small claims court, as far as I know. (Judge Judy and shows like that aren't real courts at all: they're binding arbitration. If someone tries to take you to one of those, you can always just refuse.) If the plaintiff files a lawsuit in a proper district court using a lawyer, I'm pretty sure you need a lawyer to respond to it.

Small claims courts might not have jurisdiction for this kind of purpose anyway. According to Wikipedia they usually can't issue injunctions, which is what would most likely be sought in our case. We could also be sued for statutory damages, I guess.

[Hunter Makoy]

That only works if the plaintiff files the complaint in a small claims court, as far as I know. (Judge Judy and shows like that aren't real courts at all: they're binding arbitration. If someone tries to take you to one of those, you can always just refuse.) If the plaintiff files a lawsuit in a proper district court using a lawyer, I'm pretty sure you need a lawyer to respond to it.

Small claims courts might not have jurisdiction for this kind of purpose anyway. According to Wikipedia they usually can't issue injunctions, which is what would most likely be sought in our case. We could also be sued for statutory damages, I guess.

Aw damn, I forgot that was only for small claims courts. Well in any case y'all could find a lawyer. It might not be a very good lawyer, but TWC wouldn't have to lose simply because they can't find representation.