# Part (b) revision



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

I don't know who rewrote part (b) of the User Agreement, but it is poorly worded and the word "originally" is misspelled, although the new proviso in which it is included is pre-empted and rendered moot by paragraph (I) in the first place. The portion of text in red should be omitted.

_(b) infringe the rights of any third party, including but not limited to intellectual property rights and privacy or publicity rights. This also includes copying or reproducing the text in part or in whole from a message posted at DBSTalk.Com to any other physical or internet location or site without obtaining prior permission from the user who originially posted the message text and from a DBSTalk.Com Administrator to reproduce the text in part or in whole;_

Since all posts become the property of DBSTalk.com, it is not necessary to obtain permission from the original poster in the first place.

_(l) All posts made on DBSTalk.Com become property of DBSTalk.Com._


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

Sigh. The pissing match contines...

The change does nothing to strengthen the previously worded agreement. The latter part just goes to further detail what had already been said. However, in doing so it also restricts the legal effectiveness of a deliberately vague statement. Fair use laws clearly trump any user agreements and so posts can and will get cited, within the limits of fair use, without implicit or explicit authorization.

Also, while the post may become property of DBSTalk, the original author or the contents retains the copyright. With that grants the original author the right to post, repost, or grant others permission to use the work elsewhere. Sorry but that isn't something you can just take away by a user agreement either.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

cdru- Right on target. exclusivity is not automatic but must be assigned by the author. While dbstalks can claim assigned non-exclusive rights to what members post, they cannot restrict the member from posting his own work elsewhere. The only way dbstalks could make such restriction (at least under Florida and most state's Law) is to hire members to post and claim exclusivity under a 'work for hire' agreement. As such, a member can quote posts all he wishes from dbstalks under "fair use" and there is absolutely nothing dbstalks can do about it other than deny or cancel the individual membership. The only problem is that 'fair use' can get quite gray at times.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

The purpose has always been that the original poster retains the copyright to their own work, and the change to part (b) is an attempt to reinforce that, by specifically making it a violation of our rules to copy and paste someone's work without their permission to do so. It's the original poster's choice.

We certainly understand that posts can and will be copied, regardless of what our rules state. However, we do not have to grant access to users who choose to violate our rules.



> (b) infringe the rights of any third party, including but not limited to intellectual property rights and privacy or publicity rights. This also includes copying or reproducing the text in part or in whole from a message not posted by you at DBSTalk.Com to any other physical or internet location or site without obtaining prior permission to reproduce the text in part or in whole from the user who originally posted the message text;


Reworded once again to make it more clear. Better?


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> The purpose has always been that the original poster retains the copyright to their own work, and the change to part (b) is an attempt to reinforce that, by specifically making it a violation of our rules to copy and paste someone's work without their permission to do so.





> l) All posts made on DBSTalk.Com become property of DBSTalk.Com.


Not that I care that much (or at all for that matter) but those two statements do not agree with eachother. Nor does it have any effect on anything, because, as CDRU correctly pointed out, fair use laws trump any websites "user agreement".

As for having the ability to exclude people from your website; you can already. You do not have to have a reason to do so. It is your website, you can exclude anyone for any reason. I have always laughed at User Agreements on websites as they are about the most pointless part of the website and have no effect on anything whatsoever. However, it seems as though someone enjoys continually changing it, so more power to them


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

SAEMike said:


> As for having the ability to exclude people from your website; you can already. You do not have to have a reason to do so. It is your website, you can exclude anyone for any reason. I have always laughed at User Agreements on websites as they are about the most pointless part of the website and have no effect on anything whatsoever. However, it seems as though someone enjoys continually changing it, so more power to them


Mike, we try very hard to live by the rules we set for this site, and to not overstep them in any case, unless absolutely necessary. We do this because we take our rules seriously, unlike other sites (and no, I'm not just talking about Scott with this statement). From time to time, we revise or make additions to the site rules in order to cover situations that come up.

We don't indiscriminately ban people from these forums. We don't cut access because we get angry at various users. We only do so when the rules are violated.

Users copying other users' work and representing it as their own on other sites has only become a problem in recent months. This has moved beyond Scott or one of his staff copying software release notes from us, into areas where we have records of regular users copying complete posts as their own from other regular users. So, we're going to do what we can to stop it from our side. Legally, they almost certainly can get away with it under fair use, but with the specific rule in place now, we will now be restricting access to users who do this.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

Mark- I think the problem, legally, is that dbstalks is attempting to spread it's authority beyond the law in staking a claim of control to approve when it has no exclusivity. Kind of like when I sold rights to some underwater video footage to PBS for a documentary on the environment and later sold rights to ABC and a production company in Hollywood. All contracts were non-exclusive rights to use the footage. PBS would have no authority to restrict what ABC did or vice versa even though both had obtained assigned rights to the footage. Neither had exclusivity.

The problem that concerns cdru, myself and others is this part of the rules statement:
"to any other physical or internet location or site without obtaining prior permission from the user who originally posted the message text AND from a DBSTalk.Com Administrator to reproduce the text in part or in whole..."
Under non-exclusivity rules the part- _"AND from a DBSTalk.Com Administrator to reproduce the text in part or in whole..."_ is without legal basis, unenforceable, and meaningless. The only part that has merit is that permission should be obtained from the original author. If I were doing this (and please note I do this for a living) I would only make effort to obtain permission from the author when the context of the quote is for a clearly non fair use application. Posting it to another website public forum is probably a gray area, but, if I were writing a story for the 6PM local news or using it to teach a class in an accredited school, you can bet I wouldn't waste my time with asking for permission except for common courtesy reasons. The only time I would make an effort to contact dbstalks for permission is if the original author told me he had assigned exclusive rights to the work to dbstalks.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Thought these links might be useful for some background... I am by no means up on this and I found it useful last time this topic came up. I found these site very interesting.

10 Big Myths about copyright explained

Fair Use of Copyrighted Works


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Please don't misunderstand me. I understand the place that User Agreements have, and I have always been impressed with the way that this board is moderated, well enough to keep major problems from occuring, but laid back enough to let people get a little off topic - within reason. Much better than another particular DBS Board that no longer recieves any attention (or money) from me. 

You guys do an outstanding job! Keep up the good work.


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

DonLandis said:


> The only part that has merit is that permission should be obtained from the original author. If I were doing this (and please note I do this for a living) I would only make effort to obtain permission from the author when the context of the quote is for a clearly non fair use application.


Even then, permission doesn't always have to be obtained depending on what the content is. Remember that facts themselves can't be copyrighted. The composition of facts into an original work can be, but the underlying facts can't. Anyone is always free to look at the release notes and report on what was added. Anyone can read a summary of a Charlie Chat and recompose their own report from it. Generally speaking it's proper to cite the source if the fact isn't commonly known, but isn't necessarily required.


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

I did not make these changes nor did I ask for them to be made. But I would like to make a comment. Once again people have taken the intent out of context and completely twisted it into something other than what is what intended to serve as. This change was made for the people who DO NOT want to share their work with everyone with out at least being asked and in return CREDITED for taking the time to pursue such information in the first place.

This is an enforcement clause. The next person who copies and pastes someone else's work with out posting a link to it and crediting the author for the effort is gone! Their IP addresses will be blocked, their user name banished...PERIOD! Do not turn this into a free speech or pissing contest, what is right is right, and if you do not care or do not want this information anymore it does not need to be posted for the public.

I apologize to all for my harsh stance, But there are people in here that spend considerable time and effort collecting information other people have trouble obtaining. And while I do believe that all users deserve to see it, the person who spent the time working to get that said information should be the one who is recognized for getting it. CDRU, Don, if you took time out of your busy day to get some info and put it into an understandable format, would you want someone else to take credit for your work? Ponder that one for awhile then ask yourself the question again.


----------



## Scott Greczkowski (Mar 21, 2002)

> If they don't want to share, then they should post PERIOD. It's really that simple.


If they don't want to share, then they should post PERIOD. It's really that simple.


----------



## Jason Nipp (Jun 10, 2004)

Scott Greczkowski said:


> If they don't want to share, then they should post PERIOD. It's really that simple.


Again, taken out of context. You quote one line of a large paragraph. Credit to the person that puts forth the effort is the context. And allowing the author to give a courtesy OK in response, to the requestor, for being polite and asking to use it. After all, what if the author wanted to share it but couldn't post it because his IP was banned from the domain he wishes to share it with?


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Don, and everyone else - please read item B again and notice that the item no longer mentions anything about obtaining permission from a DBSTalk administrator to do anything. It only mentions obtaining permission from the original poster of the message. That is the ONLY thing that this change is meant to do. Period.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Scott Greczkowski said:


> If they don't want to share, then they should post PERIOD. It's really that simple.


Well I had a real long reply to this and I made an editing mistake. My reply boils down to this.

1) There is more to Jason Sharing comment than just plan sharing. You took his statement totally out of context. You have stated on your site that you have no problem with people sharing information, if they link back to where it orginated from. This is exactly what Jason was referring to in his post. Cut and Pasting from a site, Maybe or Maybe not given mention to the site, but not providing a link back to the orginal source. Personally I recap, post the link, and don't cut and past the orginal. If i quote someone from another site I make it point to link the thread. That way the person reading the thread can get the benefit of both threads going on both sites.

2) CDRU, I am tired of the pissing and games being played. I elobrated on this point at lot but accidently deleted. For the person that is confused by why all the uproar. I recommend doing a little research from both sites. It will give some clarity I believe. I would start with the recent Survivor Rules issue.

I wrote more.. but I erased it and dont have the time or patience to go into more detail.

Thanks for your input CDRU.. I personally always welcome opinions from all.


----------



## DonLandis (Dec 17, 2003)

cdru said:


> Even then, permission doesn't always have to be obtained depending on what the content is. Remember that facts themselves can't be copyrighted. The composition of facts into an original work can be, but the underlying facts can't. Anyone is always free to look at the release notes and report on what was added. Anyone can read a summary of a Charlie Chat and recompose their own report from it. Generally speaking it's proper to cite the source if the fact isn't commonly known, but isn't necessarily required.


I thought the subject was in reference to quoting someone without their permission in a non-fair use application, in other words using the quote shortcut to reposting someone's works. Also there is the subject of "look and feel" which is case study law but still we need to be aware that the risk is there for look and feel violations.

Thanks to Ron's reference there is a section in myth #6 that is appropriate here.

I'd copy and paste it here but considering the subject, Chris might slap my fingers for doing that so just go read myth #6 from Ron's link. It addresses your claim above. Interesting examples used as well. CDRU- I pretty much agree with you on everything but this. In this area you may be misinformed, unless you were clearly in the realm of fair use in your comment. That is why I qualified my comments in this respect to "fair use" I'm pretty free with using fair use applications all the time but I only do that when it can't be questioned.

Mark- If the inclusionary line was taken out then that is what I was concerned about. Thanks. I have no problem with dbstalks reinforcing the US copyright laws as they are written, even to the extent of making flagrant violations a forum rules violation where the admins can enforce membership restrictions and expulsion which is your right to do so.


----------



## Gutter (May 4, 2005)

Using the Charlie chat notes as an example, how can you say you own those notes or ideas when they were originally expressed by Charlie and his guests? The one summarizing is only a reporter not an originator. Thus, if someone was going to be credited it should be Charlie Chat. Which it usually is.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Gutter - excuse me, but that's very much not correct...reporter's stories are copyrighted. There are copyright notices on every online article (with the exception of press releases on company websites) by every reporter on every news outlet website.


----------



## SAEMike (May 29, 2004)

Mark Lamutt said:


> Gutter - excuse me, but that's very much not correct...reporter's stories are copyrighted. There are copyright notices on every online article (with the exception of press releases on company websites) by every reporter on every news outlet website.


Reporter's stories are original works. They are the words of the author. The summeries of the Charlie Chats that are on the different websites, are simply that, summaries. They are more like transcripts than they are like news stories.

Whether or not the copyright by the different websites have any effect in law is another issue, but to compare a summary to a news story is completely invalid.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

Gutter was the one that made the comparison...


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

Jason Nipp said:


> I did not make these changes nor did I ask for them to be made. But I would like to make a comment. Once again people have taken the intent out of context and completely twisted it into something other than what is what intended to serve as. This change was made for the people who DO NOT want to share their work with everyone with out at least being asked and in return CREDITED for taking the time to pursue such information in the first place.


I understand and for the most part agree with the intent of the change. I have no problem with people getting credit where credit is due. However, just because the rule was written for one context doesn't mean it doesn't have the potential to effect other contexts as well. Good laws (or in this case rules) are written in a general manner so that they don't try to limit themselves to special or certain circumstances, but rather the widest set of circumstances. I know what was trying to be conveyed with the original wording of the message. If some "breaking news" was posted here, the site admins (later changed to the origial poster) wanted to control how/where the information got out to other places. However, the way it was worded was incorrect with fair use and copyright laws. I still think the currently revised wording is incorrect, but more on that below a ways.



> I apologize to all for my harsh stance, But there are people in here that spend considerable time and effort collecting information other people have trouble obtaining. And while I do believe that all users deserve to see it, the person who spent the time working to get that said information should be the one who is recognized for getting it.


I agree. If the work product was an original work of someone, it should not go without reward, even if it only is as recognization as being the source.



> CDRU, Don, if you took time out of your busy day to get some info and put it into an understandable format, would you want someone else to take credit for your work? Ponder that one for awhile then ask yourself the question again.


If they took my work verbatim, then I would have a problem. If they took a portion of my work, made a derivitive work, and called it their own, I would probably have a problem with it. If they only took factual information from my post, even if it is the only readily available source, and used it to make a more or less original work, then I would have no problem with it.



Mark Lamutt said:


> Don, and everyone else - please read item B again and notice that the item no longer mentions anything about obtaining permission from a DBSTalk administrator to do anything. It only mentions obtaining permission from the original poster of the message. That is the ONLY thing that this change is meant to do. Period.


Again, I understand what is trying to be said, but I don't agree with it. I already have the right to use text within the bounds of fair use WITHOUT first having to ask for permission. Nothing that you or anyone else says can take away that right. I have in the past quoted people without gaining their explicit permission and I will contine to do so in the future.

Hell, as written I should already be banned because of this message. I quoted sections of several member's posts in part or entirity. I never obtained anyone's permission to use the text. Every person on this site that has ever used the Reply With Quote is guilty of this infraction. If you want to ban me Jason go right ahead. My IP is 71.97.207.209 although that will change on a bi-daily basis.

I know I'm coming across as being a dick and taking everything for exactly as written instead of what is meant. I'm not trying to be the dick but I am taking things exactly as written. If in order to follow the rules we must first decide on their implied meaning instead of the meaning as worded, it's a poor rule.



Ron Barry said:


> 2) CDRU, I am tired of the pissing and games being played. I elobrated on this point at lot but accidently deleted. For the person that is confused by why all the uproar. I recommend doing a little research from both sites. It will give some clarity I believe. I would start with the recent Survivor Rules issue.


I don't know the complete history of everything, but I think I'm fairly well briefed on the overall history of events. I think it goes both ways and neither side should point the accusatory finger at the other since 3 fingers will always point back.



DonLandis said:


> Thanks to Ron's reference there is a section in myth #6 that is appropriate here.
> ...
> It addresses your claim above. Interesting examples used as well. CDRU- I pretty much agree with you on everything but this. In this area you may be misinformed, unless you were clearly in the realm of fair use in your comment. That is why I qualified my comments in this respect to "fair use" I'm pretty free with using fair use applications all the time but I only do that when it can't be questioned.


I presume you are referring to post #10 above, where I said that permission doesn't have to be obtained in all cases. I think we agree on the issue of fair use and obtaining permision. The point where we differ I think is on what is a derived work in regards to factual information.

In the example for myth #6, presuming that the fan fiction book had Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock preforming some type of Star Trek related task, then the work was a derivative of the series. I agree with this. But what the section didn't get into is the fact that factual or historical information can't be copyrighted, only a particular description of events can be. I referred to this when I said that a particular composition of facts can be copyrighted.

For instance, Tony runs the Dish Channel Chart over at EKB. In the past people at DSLReports wanted to know why they needed a 2nd dish for locals. I have provided a list of channels from that chart. My list is derived from that chart, but because the list is based on facts, Tony can't own the copyrighting of the factual information contained in the list.

The Retailer/Charlie/Tech chats are a mixture of both commentary as well as factual reporting. The facts themselves are not copyrightable. The commentary, since it (presumably) is an original work, is able to be however.

So what would I change paragraph (b) to look like? How about:
"[You agree to not use the Service to:] 
(b) infringe the rights of any third party, including but not limited to intellectual property rights and privacy or publicity rights. This also includes copying or reproducing the text in part or in whole beyond fair use from a message not posted by you at DBSTalk.Com to any other physical or internet location or site without obtaining prior permission to reproduce the text in part or in whole from the user who originally posted the message text;"

On a side note but kinda related to the user agreement, the agreement starts off by saying "You agree to not use the service to" and then proceeds to enumerate things that you aren't suppose to do by identifying each one with a letter at the beginning of the paragraph. However, from paragraph (h) onward, those topics are no longer on what you can't do with the service. It's mainly a formatting error, but I think that "You agree to not use the service to" would be better fit under it's own paragraph with the existing (a)-(g) become subparagraphs of that. This way, paragraphs (h) onward don't appear as a subparagraph of the first line.


----------



## Gutter (May 4, 2005)

Not all news stories are copywrited. I work for a newspaper and there are very specific situations that a copyright applies. coverage of a city council meeting or an accident is not, but an original investigation by a reporter can be if it is news that was never available anywhere else. Charlie chats (just as an example)are available and were broadcast. So any reporting of it would be far from being original or protected. I used the Charlie Chat comparison because CDRU did. However Mark's equipment reviews are original material and should be sited or protected.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

cdru said:


> Hell, as written I should already be banned because of this message. I quoted sections of several member's posts in part or entirity. I never obtained anyone's permission to use the text. Every person on this site that has ever used the Reply With Quote is guilty of this infraction. If you want to ban me Jason go right ahead. My IP is 71.97.207.209 although that will change on a bi-daily basis.


Why? You quoted and the content is still on DBSTalk so I don't see how that would be a violation of the rule. At least that is how I would see it. Based on the quoted text below, this rule does make using the quoted reply a violation. Why would you think it does? It is the same site.

"This also includes copying or reproducing the text in part or in whole from a message not posted by you at DBSTalk.Com to any other physical or internet location or site without obtaining prior permission to reproduce the text in part or in whole from the user who originally posted the message text"


----------



## cdru (Dec 4, 2003)

Ron Barry said:


> Why? You quoted and the content is still on DBSTalk so I don't see how that would be a violation of the rule. At least that is how I would see it. Based on the quoted text below, this rule does make using the quoted reply a violation. Why would you think it does? It is the same site.


I stand corrected in this regard as I misread the origianl rule in regards to whether it was posted on DBSTalk or any other physical or internet location.


----------



## Mark Lamutt (Mar 24, 2002)

*&*()$#&%, this doesn't have anything to do with quoting users' posts. This has to do with reposting their work as your own! What is so difficult to understand about that!?!


----------



## kzosat (Aug 22, 2004)

Why didn't you say so in the first place? I was having a heck of time with all the re-writes etc going on with that rule. Plagarism is always considered against the rules. Not sure why is just doesn't say "hey, jerky, don't plagarize other's posts or info from other sources"


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

Guys, this is ridiculous. The rules really haven't changed all that much. We are just making it more clear that plagiarism will not be tolerated. Lately we have seen the FULL TEXT of posts complete with formatting posted on other sites without any credit given to the original source. Yes, we are well aware of "fair use". 

I think this whole thread had gone as far as it will go. Closing.


----------

